Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COLCHESTER BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Business Rates

Mr. John Bercow: What recent representations he has received from industry and business concerning business rates. [152907]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have received many responses from business to the proposals for business rates set out in the Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance". A summary of the responses has been published on the Department's website. We will publish our conclusions in a White Paper later this year.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will she confirm that the Government's plan for a supplementary business rate, which could increase the business rate by up to 5 per cent. for hard-working enterprises, is to be scrapped, as reported in this morning's Financial Times? Will she now endorse the Opposition's call for a rates holiday for tourism and other businesses cruelly hit by the foot and mouth outbreak? Finally, will she endorse the Conservative policy of cutting business rates for vulnerable rural shops, post offices, pubs and garages by an average of #x00A3;1,000 a year over and above existing rate relief?

Ms Armstrong: On the first question, the supplementary rate was an issue for consultation. As I told the hon. Gentleman, we shall publish our conclusions in the White Paper; he will simply have to wait for that. In response to the problems that businesses in rural areas are suffering from because of the foot and mouth outbreak, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will make a statement later, and the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that. The Conservative party's proposals are interesting, but I suggest that he looks at the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill,

which the Government have published and presented to the House, as it will give additional rate relief to all food shops and to certain garages and pubs in small villages. Given his interest in the motor trade and the Leader of the Opposition's interest in the pub trade, I am sure that they will support our proposals.

Mr. David Borrow: There was a consultation meeting in Tarleton on the rural White Paper, and the proposals to give 50 per cent. rate relief to small rural businesses were widely welcomed by many of the people at that meeting. I urge my right hon. Friend to move swiftly to a conclusion on the consultation process. How quickly does she think that the Government will be able to implement those urgently needed reforms?

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend has shown a very great and knowledgeable interest in this matter. As he says, the proposals on rate relief for small businesses are out for consultation, and we hope to bring them to a conclusion quickly. I am sure that he discovered at the meeting that he mentioned that, more than ever, people in the business world want a stable economy and no more boom and bust, and they know that they will get that from the Labour party.

Mr. David Heath: From what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, it would be hard to believe that he supported the Government who introduced the uniform business rate. It was iniquitous then, and it is iniquitous now. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it penalises smaller retailers to the benefit of the larger out-of-town stores, so ably represented by the Conservative party? Is not it time that it was radically reformed and replaced with something fairer, which would also support traders in our town centres, not just those in villages?

Ms Armstrong: I expect that, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will fully support our proposals for rate relief for small businesses.

New Roads (Pollution)

Mr. Bill O'Brien: What plans he has to review the provision of new motorways and bypasses against pollution and other environmental criteria; and if he will make a statement. [152908]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The environmental impact of every new motorway and bypass proposal is assessed in accordance with the relevant European directives as implemented in the UK. We use the new approach to appraisal technique—NATA, as it is called—to assess all road proposals in our targeted programme of improvements. NATA takes account of sustainable development principles: environmental, economic and social factors are all properly examined and evaluated in a clear and consistent way.

Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response, but will he take into consideration what happened in my constituency with the diversion of the A1 through Ferry Bridge? A public inquiry was held in the mid-1990s, but the evidence submitted on the


environmental situation under planning regulation 10 was at least five or six years old at that time. The road will be built at some time in the next four or five years, so we are considering evidence that was submitted at least 15 years before it will be built.
As significant changes have been made in the control of the environment on motorways, will the issue be reviewed when the Government consider the construction of new motorways and diversions?

Mr. Meacher: I am aware that my hon. Friend has been assiduous in his criticism of the AIM Ferry Bridge to Hook Moor road. As he knows, an environmental impact statement was carried out originally and the project was then appraised in the 1998 roads review, using the NATA technique. Of course, when there are significant changes in the local environment, the appraisal has to be updated. I accept that that is not the reply that my hon. Friend has received in the past, but I repeat that, if changes can be assessed as significant in their environmental impact, I would expect a further application of the new approach to appraisal technique to be used.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: How does the Secretary of State square the policy of completing a network of motorway service areas at 30-mile intervals, as reflected in the decision to allow the building of a service station in the Meriden gap green belt, with the Prime Minister's assertions that we need to put business, technology and environmental protection together?

Mr. Meacher: That is exactly what lies behind a single appraisal summary table, which looks at issues of environment, economy, safety, accessibility and integration. They are very different in their applications and an attempt has to be made in every case to weigh them and to decide where the balance lies on which the decision should be made. I cannot speak about the case that the hon. Lady has mentioned. However, I am sure that that exercise was thoroughly undertaken and that the decision reflected not the fact that there may be environmental disbenefits, but that, on balance, the decision should be in favour of proceeding.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in finding a balance, it is important to take into account the relief of an urban environment as well as protecting the rural environment? Consequently, when Ministers consider the proposals for access to Hastings and integrated transport, including the bypass, will that be a consideration in their minds?

Mr. Meacher: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend, who has been diligent in his pursuit of this issue, that we shall consider that case extremely carefully. All that I can say is that, at this point, due process is being undertaken and it is not for Ministers to intervene in any way. We shall await the result of that process.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Minister will be aware that a restoration project is going ahead for the Lichfield-Hatherton canal. However, is he aware that his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, overruled the Government inspector and said that the new Birmingham northern relief road should cut the canal in half? Will the

Minister intervene with his right hon. Friend, overturn his decision, and try to restore the Labour party's promise that there should be an integrated and green transport policy?

Mr. Meacher: The Birmingham northern relief road was planned under the previous Administration and the decision to go ahead was taken under the previous Administration. We inherited that decision and, on the balance of considerations, we have decided to proceed. The hon. Gentleman will know that the construction of the road has not yet begun, but it is designed to relieve congestion on the M6 north of Birmingham. As I and many others have experienced, that congestion is intense. Of course we accept that the road is controversial in that there are environmental impacts, but I repeat that, on the balance of considerations, relieving congestion in a major way must be weighed against the environmental effects. I believe that we have found the best solution.

Leasehold Reform

Maria Eagle: When he plans to bring forward legislation on leasehold reform. [152909]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which was introduced in another place on 20 December last year is currently making good progress through its Committee stage.

Maria Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the feudalism that underlies land law in this country is an inappropriate basis on which to deal with the law of property in the 21st century? Given that his Bill is languishing in the other place, which has a more recent affinity with feudalism than this democratic House, will he confirm that his Department will prioritise it when considering whether there is time to debate it here?

Mr. Raynsford: I have to tell my hon. Friend that it is not for me to determine the allocation of time when the Bill comes to this Place. However, I am pleased to tell her that that important measure, which gives effect to the Government's commitments to achieve fundamental reforms in the antiquated and unsatisfactory leasehold tenure, is making good progress in Committee in the other place. I hope that, with a fair wind, it will complete that stage in the near future.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers saying in 1996:
Labour in Government will have no hesitation in introducing a comprehensive leasehold reform package including commonhold legislation"?
Does he agree with the Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold that his Bill fails in at least 10 areas to address the needs of the 2 million leaseholders in this country? Why has he introduced a Bill so late in this Parliament that it cannot possibly receive proper parliamentary scrutiny before the forthcoming general


election? Why has he failed so comprehensively to redeem that clearest of pre-election pledges, and why should he be trusted on the issue at the next election?

Mr. Raynsford: That is pretty rich coming from a party that spectacularly failed to honour its pledge to introduce commonhold in the previous Parliament. We will take no lessons from the Conservative party on leasehold reform and commonhold. The Bill is the most comprehensive measure for several years on the subject. It gives new rights to leaseholders to take over the management of their homes if that is unsatisfactory, extends their opportunities to buy the freehold of their homes and introduces a new commonhold tenure to enable current leaseholders in flats to own the property collectively. It is an important reforming measure that shows the Government's commitment to leasehold reform, in contrast to the abject failure of the Conservatives.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned an organisation that has been campaigning on this matter. Many of its alleged facts are inaccurate. I do not accept its criticisms; nor do the vast majority of leaseholders, who recognise the enormous progress that the Government are making.

Public Transport (Disabled Access)

Joan Ruddock: What plans he has to increase access to public transport for people with disabilities. [152911]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): We have made significant progress since 1997. Regulations requiring disabled access to new trains, buses and coaches have been introduced and similar regulations for taxis are planned. In addition, the 10-year transport plan introduced a new commitment to ensure that access for disabled people is a condition of all new public investment in transport.

Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's progress, in contrast to the Tories who failed to introduce the regulations necessary to provide increased access for people with disabilities. Although those improvements are welcome, does she agree that many railway stations, such as those operated by Connex in my constituency, present huge problems not only for people with severe disabilities, but for elderly travellers and parents with baby buggies? Does she have any proposals to deal with existing inaccessible infrastructure?

Ms Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Vehicles are only part of the equation, and enabling disabled people to negotiate stations and transport premises is obviously equally important. In 1997, we established the disability rights taskforce, which led to the formation of the Disability Rights Commission. Those bodies, along with transport industry representatives, are working to produce the guidance that is necessary to ensure that providers can meet the requirement that the Act laid on them, which is that by 2004 they will have taken all reasonable steps to remove, alter or avoid physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably

difficult for disabled people to use the service. Certainly the commission and the Government want to ensure that the guidance will bite.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the hon. Lady realise that it is almost impossible for disabled people to get on to the platform at most underground stations, and even if they were able to do so, they would need the strength of a British Lions rugby forward to get on the trains in the rush hour? Why, after four years, have the Government not fulfilled their commitment to initiate the public-private partnership for the tube, to modernise the system and to give proper access to disabled people?

Ms Hughes: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that although the Disability Discrimination Act was passed in 1995, the previous Government did absolutely nothing in their remaining two years to introduce any of the necessary regulations to implement its proposals. This Government have systematically worked since 1997 not only to make vehicles accessible but, as I have just explained, to make the transport infrastructure accessible.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I applaud what my hon. Friend said about disabled access to public transport. May I draw to her attention Tilbury Town station in my constituency, where all the residences are on the down side towards Southend? If my disabled constituents want to board a train to London, they have to travel an additional mile.
When the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), makes his journey to visit my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) to look at the parlous railway line c2c—which in my parlance stands for cancellation to cancellation—will she ensure that he has all the relevant documents and is fully briefed about that appalling station? Will she get her officials to consider that matter in advance of his visit?

Ms Hughes: I assure my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is equally concerned about disabled access, and he will ensure that he has all the necessary information before he makes that visit.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I congratulate the Government on the steps that they have taken, and applaud those steps taken by the industry, such as bus manufacturers that have been equipping buses to take disabled people. Is this not also a question of changing thought patterns, particularly in the aviation industry, where people with disabilities can travel on some planes but certain companies can refuse to take them? Surely the Act should cover them all.

Ms Hughes: In principle, I agree. The hon. Gentleman will know that while we have taken many steps to improve the situation and to introduce regulations for national transport systems, it is more difficult to deal with methods of transport with an international dimension, such as aeroplanes and ships from other countries that come here. We need to work with countries in Europe and more widely to make sure that we can set standards with


which a number of countries will comply. That is the only way to make sure that these issues are tackled across the board.

Mr. Derek Foster: My hon. Friend will be aware of the several reports from the Employment Sub-Committee pointing out how crucial public transport is in getting people to work and, indeed, in getting them to participate in the new deal. Obviously, that is especially true of disabled people and those in rural and semi-rural areas such as Bishop Auckland and Teesdale. Despite the Government's best efforts, will she now say what further measures they will introduce to enable disabled people to get to work and to participate in the new deal?

Ms Hughes: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out how crucial the question of transport is to issues of social inclusion, in terms of ensuring that when jobs become available everyone, including disabled people, can access them. I think that he would acknowledge the additional resources that have gone into providing transport in rural areas. As I pointed out earlier, the transport plan includes a commitment to make access for disabled people a condition of future public investment. That initiative has been welcomed by the disabled persons transport advisory committee, which will monitor our performance on it.

Congestion Tax (London)

Mr. Richard Ottaway: If he will make a statement on the introduction of the congestion tax in London. [152912]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Parliament has given the Mayor, Transport for London and the other London local authorities powers in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to introduce congestion charging. The Mayor has chosen to use those powers and he is now consulting on proposals for a scheme in central London.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister is correct in saying that this is a matter for the Greater London Authority. With that in mind, may I draw his attention to the front page of the Labour party's London manifesto for the elections that took place last May? Will he explain what exactly was meant by the words "no congestion charges"?

Mr. Hill: That is perfectly simple. It was the position of the Labour candidate in those elections that he would oppose not the principle of congestion charging, but its introduction in the first four years of mayoral tenure. In practice, the legislation is absolutely simple and straightforward. The Mayor is entitled to introduce congestion charging proposals and the evidence is that they are widely supported in London—[Interruption.] I hear cries of scepticism. Let me point out that the London boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, of Westminster and of Wandsworth, all Conservative boroughs—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is absolutely no point in shouting at the Minister.

Mr. Hill: Those three Tory boroughs in London have opposed the introduction of the scheme and poured money into fighting it. However, when the borough of Kensington and Chelsea conducted a consultation exercise, the result was a majority in favour of charging. Further evidence emerged in a MORI survey of senior city executives published in February 2001—it revealed that 59 per cent. agreed that a system of congestion charging would benefit London. The Government are broadly supportive of the Mayor's proposals and so, it appears, is much of London opinion.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman failed to explain the sheer hypocrisy of the Labour party's position in its London election manifesto. After four wasted years on the tube, during which the Government have failed to raise a single penny of the private investment that was promised, will the Minister tell the House what exactly the Government have done for public transport in London since they were elected?
The Conservatives built the docklands light railway, the docklands light railway extension, the Jubilee line extension, the Croydon tramlink and the Heathrow express. Those were Conservative projects. What has the Labour party done? It promised that things would only get better, but they have got worse. The Labour party has failed Londoners, failed the London tube and delivered London to a standstill.

Mr. Hill: That was a pretty good rant from the hon. Gentleman. However, in addition to seeing through the completion of the Jubilee line extension, the docklands light railway, and the introduction of the Croydon tramlink, the Government have introduced the £60 million London bus initiative. Additionally, we have pumped no less than £1.5 billion into London's underground system. There is no need to look into the crystal ball to find out about Labour's achievement—hon. Members can read it in the book.

Neighbourhood Renewal

Ms Bridget Prentice: If he will make a statement on public service targets for neighbourhood renewal. [152913]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The Government have set targets to improve outcomes on employment, education, health, crime and housing in our most deprived areas. For the first time, public services will be judged on how well they are narrowing the gap between those areas and the rest, rather than on national averages.

Ms Prentice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Downham ward in my constituency is among the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in the country? The money that is going into neighbourhood renewal is being used effectively by all concerned: the council, the community and the local police. If the local police achieve the targets


set by the public service agreement—and I am sure that they will—will they be rewarded for that achievement, not penalised?

Ms Armstrong: The money that is going to Lewisham is in recognition of the number of people living in wards in the borough that are among the 10 per cent. most deprived in the country. I assure my hon. Friend that the targets that we set are minimum targets. Indeed, last week Lewisham council signed its local public service agreement, which extends those minimum targets and sets even higher targets. When people achieve those higher targets, they will be rewarded.

Mr. Tim Loughton: Does the Minister remember the wise words of her right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)? He said of urban regeneration schemes:
There is a proliferation of programmes with insufficient collaboration between the different agencies involved at national, local and area level. As a result we are spending vast sums of money, often over and over again on the same people through different programmes".
What is different about the Minister's neighbourhood renewal scheme? Specifically, what will the new neighbourhood managers do, how many have been appointed and to whom will they be accountable? Will the Minister give a guarantee that the neighbourhood wardens in the scheme will not be used as a substitute for the 2,500 police officers who have been lost under this Government?

Ms Armstrong: There were about six questions in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I can reassure him that it is precisely to overcome different initiatives undertaken by different Departments that we have instituted the neighbourhood renewal programme, which brings all Departments together, nationally and locally, to make sure that they deliver effectively better outcomes for local people.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Given that my constituency lies at the heart of what the centre for the analysis of social exclusion deems the biggest poverty cluster in the United Kingdom, and given that the local Liberal Democrat council is unable or unwilling to access programmes for neighbourhoods in my constituency such as Anfield, Kirkdale and Walton, can my right hon. Friend suggest to my constituents ways in which they can gain rightful and proper access to the excellent programmes introduced by the Government?

Ms Armstrong: It is precisely because we recognise those levels of deprivation in Liverpool that the neighbourhood renewal fund will provide the city with an additional £45 million over the next three years. That must be spent in such a way as to ensure that at least the floor targets are delivered. People in my hon. Friend's constituency can be assured that they will have a voice in the local strategic partnership. Their voice will be heard, which will ensure that their anxieties and aspirations are properly addressed.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about Government plans to give greater protection to areas of outstanding natural beauty. [152914]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced provisions for the better management and protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty, including requiring a management plan for every AONB and providing an option for the creation of conservation boards. Planning protection for AONBs has been confirmed as being at the highest level, alongside that for national parks.

Mr. Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for all his efforts while piloting the legislation through the House, and assure him that it is greatly appreciated by all those in my constituency who live and work in the Wye valley area of outstanding natural beauty, and by people from all over the world who visit the Wye valley. Can he give some indication of the timetable for introducing the measures that he outlined?

Mr. Meacher: Yes. The main requirement relates to the introduction of the regulations that will govern the mapping process. I have already said that the mapping process must be concluded by 2005, although it is my intention that it should be concluded significantly earlier than that. It depends on the initial mapping exercise that the Countryside Agency is to carry out in the north-west and south-east of the country this summer. In the light of that, we will decide whether to proceed to open up areas of the country on a regional basis or by land type.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome the Minister's reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). Will he agree to give the same planning protection to sites of special scientific interest, including that which is identified along the line of the proposed pylons for which his Government have given approval and which go right through a SSSI? Will he agree to give SSSIs the same planning protection as areas of outstanding natural beauty?

Mr. Meacher: The CROW Act, as it is called—the Countryside and Rights of Way Act—provides greatly strengthened protection for SSSIs, not just for AONBs. The degree of protection compares with that given to grade listed housing. In other words, if damage is done, the person responsible for it can be taken to court, prosecuted and forced to return the site to a pristine condition at his or her expense. That is a clear protection, which has never existed before and now applies to all SSSIs.

Mr. Neil Turner: I welcome the speech that my right hon. Friend made earlier this month, particularly the creation of the pathfinder forces to be administered by the Tidy Britain Group, an organisation that has already shown extraordinarily good judgment by siting its national headquarters at Wigan pier. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the features that make our areas of outstanding natural beauty so attractive are the canals and


rivers that flow through them? What plans does he have to extend part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to include the banks, thereby giving authorities the ability to keep them litter free?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. I am concerned at the state of many riverbanks, and the surface of rivers is often badly littered. There are disputes about who carries that responsibility. I am keen to introduce as soon as possible new regulations or legislation that will ensure that there are adequate powers to deal with the issue. I have already had it brought to my attention, particularly in regard to the Mersey basin, but it applies to many other parts of the country. River basins that are badly litter strewn must be cleaned up.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to think about access to the countryside, particularly to areas of outstanding natural beauty, and how that would impinge on the present problems that the countryside is experiencing as a result of foot and mouth disease? It is possible that the Prime Minister will soon call a general election. Rather than cutting and running with a general election, does the Minister intend to stay in his Ministry during the election to make sure that the problems in our areas of outstanding natural beauty, which are causing concern to my constituents, are dealt with by the Government?

Mr. Meacher: That question was rather silly and over the top. Of course there is a very serious point about access to the countryside during the foot and mouth outbreak. In a few minutes, I will make a statement about that. As we stated in the guidelines that we issued on Friday, there are many parts of the country, including areas of outstanding natural beauty, which people can safely visit, as long as they abide by the rules, which are to avoid all contact with livestock, keep away from farmland and, above all, strictly obey the "Keep out" signs.

Disabled Facilities Grants

Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on disabled facilities grants. [152915]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The disabled facilities grant is a mandatory grant that is paid through local authorities for adaptations to help disabled people to live independently in their own homes for as long as possible. The Government have increased the resources available for this grant in the comprehensive spending review by 20 per cent., to £87 million next year and £89 million in 2003–04.

Mr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she outline how Coventry will benefit from the increases, bearing in mind that many families waited for years under the previous Government, but were always denied access to the grant because of the lack of money allocated to them?

Ms Hughes: My hon. Friend is right on that last point. We have increased resources substantially from £56 million, which was the amount set in the last Budget

of the previous Government, to £87 million for the coming financial year. I happen to have Coventry's disabled facilities grant allocation to hand. For the current year it is £456,000, but for the next financial year of 2001–02 it will increase by 23 per cent. to £561,000, which is about 5 per cent. higher than the average for the area. The allocation reflects Coventry's very good record on investment in facilities for disabled people and in housing adaptations.

>South East England Development Agency

Mr. Michael Fallon: What the current annual cost is of the South East England development agency. [152916]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): rose—

Hon. Members: Hurray!

Mr. Prescott: Any more?
The South East England development agency's total budget will be £79.2 million this year. Only 8 per cent.—£6.3 million—will be spent on its strategic and management role. That is excellent value for money and is less than the 9 per cent. average for the rest of the RDAs. We have a streamlined and effective way of delivering regional development, in contrast with the previous Government, who had no co-ordination and no regional policy.

Mr. Fallon: Is the Secretary of State aware that the South East England development agency has written to Members of Parliament asking them to make representations to the Commission in support of the Chancellor's highly controversial state-subsidised regional venture capital fund? Is he aware that it has supplied MPs with core scripts for that purpose? Is it genuinely the function of a regional development agency to try to rig a competition investigation in that way?

Mr. Prescott: I do not accept for one moment that the agency is doing what the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is doing an excellent job on regional development in the south-east. One can see how many jobs it has created and how much investment has been brought in. That is a matter of record. It is often said in the House that the Conservatives do not support the regional development agencies or the assemblies, which are actively involved, but it is important to bear it in mind that 105 Tory councillors serve on the regional chambers, 41 of whom do so in the south-east regional assembly. I note that the Conservative party is rightly prepared to keep the RDAs for Scotland and Wales, but that it has apparently said that it is prepared to keep them for London and not for the rest of the English regions. Greater London Assembly Member Bob Neil said:
It is not the policy of the Conservative party to abolish the London Development Agency.


Is there now another area to which it will not subject its policies? Why should the rest of the English regions have RDAs denied to them by Conservative policy? Or are there enough days left before the election for other areas to be covered by the same exemption rule?

Fiona Mactaggart: Can my right hon. Friend ensure that the South East England development agency, which leads the No. 1 region in Britain, has the resources that it needs for capital development, such as the proposed heart of Slough development? That would enable the local authority, local business and so on to create a hub of communications and cultural industries in the town that I represent.

Mr. Prescott: Yes, that is exactly what the regional development agency is doing, not only in my hon. Friend's constituency, but in many parts of the south-east. Indeed, we met RDA chairmen only about a week ago and told them about the extra resources and the single pool of development capital that will available for investment in the regions. That was welcomed, but we went further. We gave £500,000 a rear to each of the regional assemblies so that they can check what the RDAs are doing in their areas and to ensure that they are more accountable.

Mr. Archie Norman: I am surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister does not accept that SEEDA is doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) says it is doing, because it has described exactly that in writing to all south-east Members. As the Deputy Prime Minister believes that SEEDA is such excellent value for money—indeed, it is one of the more efficient development agencies—will he say how much it spends on representation and lobbying in Brussels and how much it spent last year on PR and marketing, including its own annual report?

Mr. Prescott: The amount I mentioned for administration was £6.3 million. I do not know the exact figure for how much is spent in Brussels, although it is clear that development agencies want to make representations because much regional funding is decided there. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to say how much is spent, but a quick call to the regional chair would have established it.
>The agencies are doing an excellent job and I am absolutely delighted to hear that the Opposition spokesman believes that the South East England RDA is doing a good job, as 41 of the Tory councillors—[HoN. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] Well, I thought he said that. If he did not, I withdraw my remark. Presumably, he believes that RDAs are not doing a good job. That is fine; he will have a chance at the coming election, whenever it comes, to put his case for abolition. I am sure that many Tory councillors, including the leader in Kent and the leaders of a number of Tory authorities, support the proposal for a development agency and an assembly. They will have a choice and I think they will vote accordingly.

Mr. Norman: The Deputy Prime Minister seems to be totally out of touch, even with his own figures. Let me tell him the figure for administrative expenses, PR and marketing SEEDA itself—£630,000 last year. Furthermore, £50,000 is spent keeping employees in

Brussels and a large sum also goes on lobbying there. The leader of Kent county council has specifically assured me, and has gone on the public record as saying, that he opposes the development agency and supports our policy to abolish it.
Is not the real truth that SEEDA is another example of an unwanted quango covering a region that nobody identifies with and spending money that would not otherwise be spent? Does not the Deputy Prime Minister agree that if it succeeds in achieving anything, it will attract businesses that would otherwise go to the north and the midlands, thereby extending the north-south divide? Is not this the real point: England would be better represented as one country with a coherent regional policy rather than by eight regions, all with their hands out for state subsidy?

Mr. Prescott: I fail to understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman's point. He is prepared to accept development agencies for Scotland and Wales, whatever the bureaucratic cost and whatever the difficulties in assisting with the differential between the north and south of Scotland and the English regions. Why can he accept development agencies for Scotland and Wales, but not for the English regions, where the populations are far higher and often in desperate need of economic assistance? The agencies have done an excellent job. In order to inform the House, and so that I can be better informed, will he comment on this statement by a Tory GLA Member:
It is not policy of the Conservative party to abolish the London Development Agency"?
Would the Tories keep the agency for London?

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour Members have supported RDAs from the very beginning? Like him, I am a Yorkshire and Humber Member, and he will agree that Yorkshire and Humber is the No. 1 region in the United Kingdom. We believe in the RDAs, for all the country, because they are good for investment, good for innovation, good for planning and good for the future.

Mr. Prescott: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Tories said that they would abolish the Scottish and Welsh development agencies and they put that in their manifesto, but when they came to power they found that they needed such agencies to help to change and develop the economies in all regions. I suspect that the same would happen on this occasion were they to be elected, but there is not much chance of that.

Social Housing (Southern England)

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What estimate he has made of the need for additional social housing in southern England. [152917]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Because of the wide variation in need between different parts of the country, the Government believe that local authorities are best placed to carry out local housing needs assessments. In determining housing requirements for their regions, and in order to meet the full range of housing needs, regional planning bodies may have to estimate the future balance between general


market and affordable housing. Draft regional planning guidance for the south-east suggests a provisional indicator of 18,000 to 19,000 affordable homes per year, and draft regional planning guidance for the south-west suggests a figure of between 6,000 and 10,000 per year.

Mr. Swayne: That is an extraordinary statement from the Minister, given that his Department is interfering and preventing New Forest district council, which is a beacon council, from getting on with the job of building social houses to relieve homelessness. Is not that why 50,000 fewer social dwellings have been built under this Government than were built in the preceding four years?

Mr. Raynsford: New Forest district council has done extremely well under this Government. In the coming financial year, it will receive a housing allocation of more than £5 million, which is 25 per cent. higher than in the current year and 88 per cent. higher than the allocation when the Tories were last in power. This Government are giving more money to local authorities and more money for housing.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to assess the need for additional social housing it is a good idea to have some plan of the overall housing need in any region? Does he agree that a policy of abdicating the need for any planning guidance or planning decision in favour of allowing local authorities to build housing in their own areas, as the Conservative party believes, is a recipe for little or no social housing or for such provision to be unpredictable? Will he commit himself to ensuring that, in planning regional housing need, careful consideration will be given to what level of social housing is required and how it can best be provided?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend rightly emphasises the fact that it is important to make a proper assessment of the considerably varying needs from area to area. That is why we put the focus on local authorities analysing the needs of their own areas. We think that it is right and appropriate for regional planning bodies to estimate the balance between affordable, social housing and general market housing. That is an essential element in developing a proper analysis of each region's needs to inform local authorities' local plans. We will adopt that approach to ensure that a serious analysis is conducted region by region and local authority by local authority.

Railtrack (Investment)

Mr. Steve McCabe: What assessment he has made of the benefits of encouraging train operators to invest in Railtrack. [152918]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The Government's 10-year plan provides scope for new ways of securing private sector finance and expertise, including from train operators when that makes sense. The

Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack and the preferred bidder for the south central franchise are currently working together to establish the first such partnership.

Mr. McCabe: Does my hon. Friend accept that the fragmentation of the service and the complete split between track and train was probably one of the worst aspects of the previous Government's botched privatisation of the railways? In those circumstances, does he agree that there would be strong public support for any practical measures designed to reintegrate the structure and improve the performance, management and financial strength of the railways so that we can achieve the targets in the 10-year plan?

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly reasonable point, but I have three observations about the argument on vertical integration. First, it would reduce the autonomy of franchisees and undermine current and proposed franchises. Secondly, it would make the Rail Regulator's role more difficult. Thirdly, it could hinder the efficient operation of cross franchise operators, such as freight companies.

Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister agree that if Railtrack's structure is not changed, the notion of anyone investing in it is almost a joke? Given the complete chaos on our privatised railways, does the Minister believe that privatisation of the railways has created a market where "the customer is king", has led to
new energy and enthusiasm in the industry
and has ensured that
trains are cleaner safer and a good deal faster.
Is he aware that those paeans came from his Labour colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and does he agree with them?

Mr. Hill: It is good to see the Liberal Democrat beast waken from its slumber at last. I am sure we are all extremely grateful for that.
Under the current structure of the railway industry—notwithstanding the difficulties experienced in the aftermath of recent tragic events—there has been a significant growth in rail usage of 70 per cent. over the past three years. The train operating companies are succeeding in attracting customers, and the Government are committed—by our proposal to invest £60 billion in the system over the next 10 years through the transport plan—to increasing passenger volume on the railways by 50 per cent. That is an objective to which I believe the whole House can happily assent.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Has my hon. Friend read the words of the Rail Regulator this morning? Given what he has just said about vertical integration, will he tell us what plans he has to ensure that before taxpayers invest £8 billion in the system they have some indication that their wishes will be carried out, that they will be given value for money, and that they will not be simply handing large amounts of their money to private investors?

Mr. Hill: I have noted the remarks of the Rail Regulator, which the Government broadly welcome.
Through various mechanisms, the Government are working extremely closely with both the Strategic Rail Authority and Railtrack to achieve exactly the goal desired by my hon. Friend—the securing of proper value for money through the investment that the Government propose to make in the railway industry and, in due course, through Railtrack.

Road Accidents

Mrs. Ann Cryer: What steps he has taken to reduce the number of road accidents in the past three years. [152919]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): In March last year, the Government launched their new road safety strategy for Great Britain, "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone". It included targets to reduce overall deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent. and to reduce child deaths and serious injuries by 50 per cent. by 2010, compared with the average for 1994 to 1998, together with details of many policies and initiatives that will help to achieve them

Mrs. Cryer: I have very good reasons—personal reasons—to welcome any measures that will reduce the number of road traffic accidents. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that the safest method of travel remains travel on our railways?
Following earlier questions, and in view of many letters in my postbag at home, I am beginning to be increasingly concerned at the number of people who tell me that they are returning from the railways to their cars—which can only bring about more accidents—owing mainly, in my area, to the chaos created by Railtrack at Leeds city station. May I encourage my hon. Friend to read early-day motion 69, which bears 108 signatures, and part of which calls for what is now Railtrack to be returned to public ownership?

Mr. Ainsworth: The whole House recognises and appreciates my hon. Friend's interest in road safety.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Despite efforts made over a long period to make our roads safer—and our record in that regard bears comparison to that of any of our European colleagues—and despite the difficulties, and publicity about those difficulties, that rail has experienced over the past year or so, rail travel is still seven times safer than road travel. We must continue to make people aware of that, and encourage them as far as possible to use rail rather than roads, for safety as well as for environmental and other reasons.

Mr. David Prior: What action are the Government taking to encourage county councils to impose 30 mph speed limits through rural villages?

Mr. Ainsworth: We have given councils the power, where they think it appropriate, to introduce 20 mph speed limits. That is part of the programme introduced in the paper "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone".

Foot and Mouth (Rural Economy)

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I wish to report on the work of the rural taskforce, which held its second meeting this morning. We all agreed that our first priority remains to eradicate foot and mouth disease as soon as possible. The situation remains an extremely serious one. Its effects are very serious for farmers and the wider rural community, especially in tourism. The rural taskforce, which has representatives from a range of rural interests and Departments, is working urgently to develop measures to alleviate those impacts.
I must commend the response of the public who have been very anxious to avoid spreading the disease. However, large parts of the country are not affected, and people wrongly believe that the whole countryside is out of bounds. That has had a devastating and unnecessary impact on many of the businesses that depend on visitors to rural areas. The best way of helping rural businesses is to encourage their customers to return as quickly as possible to the many places where it is safe to do so.
The taskforce has therefore agreed on a number of actions to achieve that. First, last Friday we issued new guidance to the public on what they can do safely in the countryside and what they must not do. The basic message is that the public should stay away from livestock and their pastures, but that there are still plenty of things to do and places to visit in the country without risking spreading the disease.
Secondly, an increasing number of rural properties will be opening to the public again very shortly: English Heritage is announcing today that more than 200 properties will be open from 1 April; the National Trust will announce shortly that it will be opening about 150 properties between now and 1 April; and British Waterways will be reopening many of its canals starting next week. In all cases, that follows a very careful, in-depth review agreed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Thirdly. local authorities and national park authorities will be considering where footpaths can be safely opened. I hope that there will shortly be a much wider availability of footpaths for the public outside the infected areas.
Fourthly, we are mounting a public information campaign to ensure that the message gets through to the public about what they can and cannot do, and about the benefits that they can bring to rural businesses by their visits to the countryside—particularly to rural and seaside towns and villages, hotels, guest houses and tourist attractions in rural areas.
The Government, in conjunction with the tourism industry, are setting up a public information telephone line which will steer callers to more detailed help on what attractions are open. Extra funding will be made available to tourist boards to promote rural attractions.
We are also developing a preliminary package of measures to alleviate the immediate financial hardship of small businesses in rural areas which have been badly hit by the sudden decrease in visitors and other knock-on effects of the foot and mouth outbreak. In preparing the package, we have met and listened to a wide range of rural interests.
The first stage measures are as follows. First, we can offer help through the rates system. We will consider help through the rates system by increasing the central Government contribution to rate relief, from 75 to 95 per cent., for small businesses in rural authorities in the areas of greatest need and that are suffering genuine hardship because of foot and mouth. Affected businesses can also apply to the Valuation Office Agency for a temporary reduction in their rateable value.
On Friday, we presented a Bill that will extend mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief to all food shops in small rural settlements. We will also lay regulations to extend mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief to sole village pubs and garages with a rateable value of less than £9,000. Local authorities will also consider using their existing powers to allow deferred payment of rates. We are also announcing a three month extension to the deadline for business rate appeals.
Secondly, we can help through the tax system. As a first step, Ministers have asked Inland Revenue and Customs officials to take a very sympathetic approach to businesses experiencing financial problems as a result of the outbreak. The revenue departments already have power in specific circumstances to defer payment of taxes and national insurance contributions and to agree extended arrangements for time to pay. They will make maximum use of this flexibility for agricultural, transport, tourism and related retail businesses in the countryside, which cannot pay debts because of cash flow problems, where cash flow assistance, through rescheduling tax or national insurance contribution liabilities, would help.
Thirdly, we are considering with the Small Business Service and the banks how we can ensure continuing credit for small businesses badly affected by the impact of foot and mouth disease, including the use of the small firms loan guarantee fund. The Small Business Service, through a national helpline, will provide more information on the package of support available and access to the network of local business links.
Fourthly, we can help through the benefits system. Jobseeker's allowance may be available to employees and self-employed people out of work as a result of foot and mouth. The Department of Social Security will be making its procedures as fast and as flexible as possible.
I have had constructive discussions with the major banks. It is clear that they fully understand the problems faced by businesses from all sectors affected and they are being proactive in contacting their customers who are likely to be in trouble. They have made it clear that they are keen to support their customers wherever possible. They will look, on a case-by-case basis, at mechanisms such as extended lines of credit, capital repayment holidays and other measures. I would encourage all bank customers in difficulty or expecting problems to contact their local bank manager as soon as possible to discuss what options may be available.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the important role that the voluntary sector is playing in relieving rural distress. I can announce today that the Government will match the public donations that have been made to them for this purpose.
I should stress that this is a preliminary package. The taskforce will continue in being as long as it is needed. I look forward to making further announcements in due course.

Mr. Archie Norman: I thank the Minister of State for his statement. Many people in the countryside will have been awaiting his response today with mounting anxiety. It was a week ago that we first called for action to help businesses more broadly affected than those in the agriculture sector, including a call for business rate cancellation, on which the Minister commented today. It is now four weeks since the crisis started and it is clear that, on all sides, the extent of the crisis has been widely underestimated. The countryside is now risking meltdown and permanent loss of businesses, enterprise and employment. [Interruption.] Labour Members may not know about that, but Conservative Members do; we have many examples of enterprises that are threatened with going out of business imminently. The loss of employment will create enduring suffering in the countryside. It is important that all parties in the House address the question with great seriousness, and in a spirit of bipartisanship.
Against that background, the measures announced today will be widely welcomed, as far as they go. I have only just heard the Minister's statement, and the detail needs to be studied, but I have no doubt that the measures will command our support if they are delivered rapidly, and without bureaucracy and delay. However, businesses in the countryside need help now, not in a few months. The Minister was right to say that cash flow is their problem, and speed is of the essence.
Many people will be concerned that many of the proposals outlined by the Minister are conditional in nature and subject to further consultation. They will look for an accelerated time scale for the measures' implementation. It is hard to avoid the impression that the Government are still in the process of catching up with the crisis. We appreciate that the situation is fast moving, but the matter is now of the utmost urgency. When will the cash relief affect the bank accounts and overdrafts of affected businesses? That is the acid test.
In that context, I have a number of questions for the Minister. Will he undertake to look at the bureaucracy and the processes through which businesses must go, for example in applying for temporary rate relief? That process normally takes some weeks. Unless action is taken, however, businesses could go bankrupt in that period of time, especially given that Easter is approaching,
Does the Minister believe that the total tax relief, which he has presumably agreed with the Treasury, goes far enough? Will he give the House an idea of the Treasury estimate of the cost and financial commitment of the total package? That would give hon. Members an opportunity to judge the extent to which his announcement represents a real change.
For many businesses, the loss of cash flow will be irrecoverable. Overdrafts are rising, and tax deferral will merely add to the rising debt. Will the Minister consider going further than deferrals, and perhaps announce his support for enabling local authorities to provide a business rate holiday for the duration of the crisis for those businesses directly affected by it? The livelihoods of the

owners of those businesses are at risk. The Opposition have advocated that proposal, and the Minister's statement was not clear on that point.
Again in a spirit of bipartisanship, may I raise the question of the climate change levy? I appreciate that that has been a matter of contention in the House, but I wish to set that to one side. I recognise that the levy has been approved by the House, but does the Minister consider it possible to contemplate a deferral of its implementation? The cost of the climate change levy to agriculture alone is estimated at £17 million. The Cumbria tourist board and others have called for a deferral. The levy is due to be implemented on 1 April, and will adversely affect many of the businesses that are already suffering.
The Minister will know that there remains widespread confusion about public events. Horse racing events in agricultural areas such as Lingfield are continuing, but other events, such as Crufts, have been cancelled. Hon. Members of all parties will have received letters from people who have been given apparently contradictory advice by local authorities and other bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) gave me the example of the Sutherland Lodge activities centre in his constituency. The local authority has advised that all school outings should be cancelled, and as a result the future of the business is at risk.
Is it possible to provide further clarity in Government guidance about the holding of public events? That would enable people in this country—and foreign tourists thinking of visiting from abroad—to be clear about which public events are likely to proceed, and which are likely to be cancelled.
On the vexed question of the pending county council elections, the Minister will be aware that all the political parties involved in Cumbria and Devon have called for a postponement of them in those areas specifically. Many people in the areas worst affected are living under a state of siege. They would find it insulting if politicians were seen to be engaging in a partisan battle during the local elections. It is time, surely, for all parties to pull together in those areas. Have the Government considered our suggestions for deferring local elections, or for taking the powers to defer local elections in those areas, if necessary, so that a decision can be made in the next few days, depending on the way the crisis develops?
I appreciate that the role of the Environment Agency, for which the Secretary of State is responsible, falls at the outer edge of the subject covered in this statement, but the issue is critical to the industry. There is widespread frustration at the reluctance to authorise the burial of carcases. A report in 1969 recommended burials as the fastest and most effective method of disposal, and preferable to burning. Yet reports from all parts of the country suggest that the Environment Agency has adopted a negative and unconstructive attitude towards burial. We appreciate that the agency is now affected by European legislation, but will the Secretary of State undertake to meet the Environment Agency to discuss this and see what can be done to accelerate the process of burial where it is appropriate and where it can be undertaken without adverse environmental effects?
Finally, will the Secretary of State accept that it is critical to have greater clarity from the Government on the extent and severity of the crisis? It is vital that the extent of the problem is not understated. Some in the


Government have given the impression of wanting to downplay the crisis, while others have emphasised its seriousness. With hindsight, it may have been unwise for Ministers to have briefed last week that the situation was "under control". The Secretary of State spoke of safe zones on the "Today" programme last Wednesday. I do not know what has happened to the concept of safe zones, but the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport did not seem to have heard of them that same afternoon. That may be just one example of what has hitherto been a somewhat confused approach.
We appreciate that the situation is fast moving, and we welcome the Government's more encouraging response today. We will support remedies that bring fast relief to business. However, let there be no doubt that this is a national crisis that requires a national emergency response and a nation that speaks with one voice.

Mr. Meacher: I believe that we fully understand the extent of the impact of the outbreak. Given the efforts of my colleagues in MAFF to deal with the containment, control and extermination of the disease and the measures that we are bringing forward to help non-farm businesses, I do not believe that we have in any way underestimated the gravity of the situation. I believe that we have reacted rapidly and effectively, and that is the significance of today's statement.
I am grateful for much of the sober response of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). However, to refer to a "meltdown" is completely over the top and inappropriate and does not help in making a serious and proper response to the situation. Something like 1 per cent. of livestock have been affected. Of course, the implications go far wider, but we should keep things in perspective.
We accept that the Government will command support for their measures if they are delivered quickly. That is why I have had urgent discussions with the banks and have brought forward measures that will provide rate relief. Concern about the rate demands at the end of the month is, I think, people's prime financial anxiety. We are effectively meeting that anxiety with the proposals that we have made today.
I take the point that we should reduce bureaucracy in every possible way at this time. I stressed that repeatedly in my statement. The process of getting rate relief will be accelerated and prioritised. On the cost, I cannot give the house an accurate overall figure, because it depends on assessments made on a case-by-case basis. However, tens of thousands of small businesses will benefit from the measures that I announced today. Whether local authorities are able to offer a business rate holiday is a matter for their discretion, within the parameters of the extended scheme that I offered today.
The climate change levy, as the hon. Gentleman correctly says, comes into effect in less than a fortnight. I remind him that, overwhelmingly, it will be larger and non-rural businesses that will certainly have liabilities under the levy. I repeat that the measures being demanded of them are cost-effective; over time, those measures will benefit the bottom line of businesses by improving their energy efficiency. Although there is a short-term issue to be dealt with in respect of foot and mouth, the longer-term

climate change issue remains with us all the time. We should not abandon measures that are necessary for that purpose.
On sporting activities, of course we want the clearest possible information about the availability of sporting and other public events. That depends entirely and specifically on the advice of the chief veterinary officer. We hope that he will make clear his views on the holding of such events as quickly as possible.
Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, it is not the case that all parties in Cumbria and Devon have sought postponement of the county council elections. That is certainly not so in Cumbria. I do not believe that there is a justification for taking such action at this stage. Certainly, we have to take account of the future course of the disease and we have to listen to what people are saying, but to send a message—especially abroad—at this point in time, that the whole country, or major parts of it, is in quarantine and that democracy has been suspended will not give a true or accurate image of our country.
Finally, on the hon. Gentleman's last point, I realise that there is an issue in relation to the Environment Agency and the disposal of carcases. The valuation of carcases can take an unduly long time, but we are looking at ways to speed up that process.

Dr. Jack Cunningham: May I tell my right hon. Friend that in my rural constituency in Cumbria his statement and these first steps to bring help to businesses will be warmly welcomed? Is he aware of the importance not only of the Government giving a clear, coherent message about the countryside, but of regional and local agencies doing the same? For example, is he aware that more than 100 visitor attractions in Cumbria and the Lake district are still open for business as usual? There is no reason that people should not go to them.
It is important that the Government attack the foot and mouth outbreak more aggressively and urgently bring more resources to bear on the problem in Cumbria and elsewhere. As long as the outbreak continues, rural businesses—large and small—in Cumbria and elsewhere will suffer; they are already suffering very, very seriously—especially the tourist industry.
May I also—[Hon MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh, yes. May I tell my right hon. Friend, the House and the Opposition spokesman that there was a Cumbria-wide crisis meeting yesterday in Kendal? All parties and all MPs attended. At no time was there a call from anyone for the suspension of elections, so the Opposition spokesman is totally wrong on that point. Indeed the meeting called for a non-partisan approach to these mattters.
Finally, let me tell my right hon. Friend and the House that the statement by the Leader of the Opposition that the chief executive of the Cumbria tourist board has called for the cancellation of elections is also completely untrue.

Mr. Meacher: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he says. I am sure that he is right to say that the Government's clear and coherent message has to be reflected regionally and locally. Indeed, the helplines that we have put in place for local authorities and business are designed precisely to try to achieve that. I take note of the fact that, as he said, more than 100 visitor attractions are still open. That information is useful


because there is a widespread perception, which is wholly wrong, that they are all closed. That is not the case, and many more can be reopened.
We are deploying all the resources at our disposal to try to contain and eradicate the disease, especially where the outbreak is greatest—in Cumbria Devon and along the Welsh border. I take note, as did the whole House, of the correction that my right hon. Friend gave to the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Colin Breed: I welcome the Minister's interim statement and hope that it represents the first step in explaining to the House how the Government will assist businesses, which will be affected for a long time. I know he agrees that clarity is important in enabling the public and business people to gain access to the support. That is vital. We do not need more bureaucracy and administration; we need more management of the resources and better use of the existing channels.
Specifically on the right hon. Gentleman's discussions with the banks, does he agree that they have an opportunity to show just how supportive of small businesses they are? Is he aware that there is evidence to suggest that they are already pulling out of some projects for which they had originally shown support? On rate relief, will special support be provided charities? They already receive 80 per cent. rate relief, so the modest increase may not assist them greatly. Will he confirm that the proposals include the deferment of VAT payments for one or perhaps two quarters? Will he also confirm that this is just the interim statement and that he expects to return to the House in the not-too-distant future to explain what progress the taskforce has made?

Mr. Meacher: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I certainly confirm—as I twice said in the statement—that this is a preliminary statement. I appreciate the point about the need for urgency and rapid response. That is the reason why I have made this first step announcement today, but there will certainly be other statements, as and when necessary, in the light of further revelation of need. That is the criterion by which we shall decide what further action to take. Of course, as I said, it is very important that people should find it easy to gain access to the support. We are doing all we can to ensure that there is simplicity. We are running a massive advertising campaign to let people know, by using a single telephone number, where they can get help, so that they can be directed locally to precise and specific assistance.
I met the banks, and they said that they were being proactive and were seeking out among their clients those whom they thought might be in difficulty. I am concerned to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that they might be pulling out of some projects. I should be pleased to know whether that is the case. I believe that they should be held to their word, and those who are involved in those projects should beard their local managers about the consequences of such action.
Of course rate relief is not primarily aimed at charities, and the hon. Gentleman should not belittle the increase in aid—from 75 to 95 per cent.—that the Government are offering. The proposals on VAT payments are primarily aimed at the next quarter, but a further quarter could be included if that were to prove necessary. There are

flexibilities in the system, such as deferment and rescheduling, and we shall use them, on a case-by-case basis, where we can.

Kali Mountford: My constituency has a mixed economy, in which farmers and tourists are very important. We need a clear and loud message that we have confidence in the countryside as part of the economy. In particular, the X Paragliding Company is entirely situated on National Trust land. It has not just had a cash flow problem—it has had no cash at all because the National Trust has been closed for business. I am very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that, within a week, we shall know more about the opening of National Trust land. What advice can I give to my constituents who are now suffering greatly from the lack of paragliding—although the snow may have prevented that from happening any way? How quickly will we be able to tell them which National Trust areas will be open for business?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that confidence in the countryside is an issue of great importance. If confidence returns and people realise just how far they can take advantage of the attractions and the beauty of the countryside and return to it in complete safety in the knowledge that they are not transmitting the disease any further, there will be no better way of bringing relief to rural businesses in their thousands. People may not visit the countryside for that motive, but that will be the consequence. It is an extremely important lesson for everyone in the country to understand.
With regard to paragliding, the advice that I have received from the National Trust is that it intends to open 150 properties after it has carried out a case-by-case analysis. That is the way that everything is being done; there are no blanket restrictions and there will be no blanket openings. Those properties should open in the next week or two, so I suggest that my hon. Friend advises her constituents to contact the National Trust. It will give precise advice about local areas.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Although I welcome part of the Minister's statement, does he really understand the true depth and extent of the fear, despondency and crisis in my constituency? I have questions on two specific issues. First, why will the Government not call out the Army in real numbers to bury the carcases that have been lying around for days in Devon? Why are they culling healthy animals in Cumbria and not dealing with the backlog in Devon? Secondly, how can we have county council elections in Devon on 3 May when many county councillors and many candidates from all parties are farmers? How can there be a proper democratic process in Devon? When will the Minister listen to the voice of Devon?

Mr. Meacher: We are listening to the voice of Devon; indeed, I intend to visit Devon for a whole next day Thursday. Of course, we are listening to Cumbria, to Powys and to Devon. Those areas are hardest hit and we take careful note of all the information that we have about them from MAFF and other sources.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should call out the Army to get rid of the backlog of carcases. I said in my statement that we recognise that that is a serious issue. However, we do not at this stage believe that that is the


right or necessary solution; we believe that there are better ways of dealing with the problem and we intend to put them in place. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make very clear the Government's proposals on that.
With regard to elections, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern when so many of his constituents and those in the surrounding area find it difficult to move around at this time. I repeat that I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I genuinely believe that to take such a decision at this point would be deeply irresponsible. If there is the widespread belief in the United States that BSE is exactly the same as foot and mouth, the message that some parts of England cannot even hold democratic elections will be taken extremely badly and it will be utterly counterproductive.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: There is a real crisis in my constituency and it is very hard to put into words what is happening in such towns as Keswick, where businesses, hotels, outdoor centres and shops have found that their turnover has dropped by 90 per cent. The whole turnover of some businesses in my constituency has been wiped out, so we cannot underestimate the significance of the package that my right hon. Friend has introduced. It will be appreciated in so far as it meets some of the central requirements and requests of the tourist authorities in the county.
In the detail of my hon. Friend's statement, he mentioned the countryside and rural areas. Can he assure us that the towns to which I referred will be included in those rural categories? There must be no mistake in the mind of the public, especially when it comes to taxation deferment and rates relief, which is what will concern people.
May I Pass on a constituent's suggestion that was made to me on the telephone this morning? He has a simple solution, for which I think he has a case. He said, "Why not subsidise attractions?" My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to 100 attractions in our area. Why not subsidise those? That would bring people back to our areas to fill the boarding houses, hotels and restaurants and could well be a less expensive way of dealing with a problem that might turn out to be very costly in the long term.

Mr. Meacher: I do not underestimate the seriousness of the situation facing many farms and non-farm businesses, especially in Cumbria. When I was in the east and west midlands on Saturday, I met many representatives of small businesses who said that turnover had dropped by 50 or 70 per cent. and, in one case, by 90 per cent. I understand the problem. The question is how we can best respond to it quickly. That is what the Government have been addressing. There is no specific panacea; the package relies on a combination of measures that give well targeted, practical, short-term and effective help to tens of thousands of firms. That is our intention.
The package does apply to towns and small settlements in the countryside. Indeed, one matter under consideration is how far we can accelerate the application of the measures in the rural White Paper, especially in regard to parishes and small village settlements and the promotion

of market towns. We have provided £37 million for that purpose which, if we lever in money, could be £100 million. If we manage to introduce that money quickly enough, it, too, will be an effective measure.
We will certainly consider promoting attractions, but we believe that it is much better to allow the local tourist board, under the direction of the English Tourism Council, to receive extra funding for that purpose, which we propose to provide. That is the best way to get more people to visit attractions and it will reduce the need for direct subsidies. No one wants subsidies; people just want to return to norma1 business. Carefully targeted extra funding can achieve that.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Although I welcome the statement, which is a step in the right direction, may I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said about the Army on Dartmoor? It is a permanent home to an enormous military contingent and there are three live firing ranges and dry training areas. The Army are all around the moor, in the moor and on the moor, but they are not helping the farmers. That is madness.
The South Hams, which is part of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, has no foot and mouth disease and a huge tourism industry, but people from American and the midlands in particular believe that it is a no-go area. The attractions are open and people can walk on the sandy beaches. The Government could help by clearly stating that it is business as usual in the South Hams and that people from the midlands, the north and the United States in particular are most welcome.

Mr. Meacher: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the use of the Army on Dartmoor. I have already responded to that point. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will certainly be taking account of this exchange, and I am sure that he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said. I repeat that we entirely accept that there is a serious problem and that it is totally unsatisfactory to have carcases lying around for several days. The question is how the problem is best dealt with, and that is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend. He will have heard those comments, which of course are not unique but have been made by many others, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will respond to them.
On the second point, it is precisely the aim of my statement and of the rural taskforce that the Government can open up the countryside where that can safely be done and so long as the basic rules are obeyed. My statement will be followed up with all the institutions that can assist, and there will be massive advertising campaigns so that the message is put across. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Government are doing their best not only in this country but abroad. The British Tourist Authority is increasing its advertising in areas that have seen the biggest drop in the numbers of tourists coming to the UK—the United States, the Republic of Ireland, Germany and France There is a big campaign to set the record straight and to state that it is far from true that the countryside is out of bounds. In fact, the great majority of it is in absolutely no sense a no-go area.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call another Member, I appeal for short questions. That will be very helpful indeed.

Mrs. Betty Williams: The measures offered by my right hon. Friend and the speed with which he has acted will be much appreciated by my constituents. The delegation that I led to the Wales Office last week to meet the Under-Secretary of State was seeking such actions. Will my right hon. Friend take note of the widespread effects that the cancellation of this year's Urdd National Eisteddfod in Cardiff will have? Will he note also the knock-on effects of the cancellation on Llandudno in my constituency? If the 2002 Eisteddfod is cancelled, the area will lose about £2 million. Will he therefore ensure that effects on the whole of Wales will be considered by the taskforce?

Mr. Meacher: I am aware of course that the outbreak has had devastating effects on many national and public events, not least the one to which my hon. Friend referred. I understand that the Under—Secretary of State for Wales has written to her about what was said at their meeting. We want to ensure that festivals with international as well as national significance should be able to go ahead. I repeat that our actions must be guided by MAFF's veterinary advice. As soon as it is safe to reopen venues or to allow events to go ahead, the Government are extremely keen that we should do so, but we must rigorously accept the advice, whatever it is.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Everyone who has known the Minister over the years will know that he made his statement today with complete sincerity. However, at lunchtime we heard the Leader of the House saying that it is not people who are in quarantine, but only animals. Does that not give rise to the suspicion that the Government do not yet appreciate that they have a national crisis on their hands?
I assume that the right hon. Gentleman will have made an assessment of the consequences for a tourism industry that may well find that in certain parts of the country the summer season is already lost. I assume also that he will have made some assessment of the effect that that will have on farmers who may not be able to start up their proceedings again for six or nine months. Given that we have a national crisis on such a scale, what measures is the right hon. Gentleman thinking of introducing, other than those announced today which are very small and specific? Where in his thinking is the sense that we are dealing with a national crisis that needs a national response?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentle man has not fairly characterised the tone of my statement or my responses. I recognise, as all Ministers have, that this is a very serious situation. I do not think anyone attempts to underplay it in any way. However, the issue is how we handle it, and how we contain and eradicate the disease.
The hon. Gentleman is almost certainly right in saying that there will be significant losses of international tourism in the summer, and that for many farm and non-farm businesses the effects could continue for some considerable time. That is why I said—taking account of

the demand of the House for an urgent statement so that the immediate requirements could be put in place and everyone knew what they were, and so that the helpline could be set up within a matter of days—that I would then judge whether it was right to introduce further measures over the next few weeks. Obviously the content of such measures would depend on the course of the disease, and on further and clearer revelations of the degree of economic damage that the situation has caused.

Judy Mallaber: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to publicise the fact that many of our tourist attractions in the countryside are still open: for example, in Amber Valley, the midland railway museum, the national tramway museum, the Denby pottery visitors centre and the industrial heritage sites. Will he ensure that nothing is done to muddy the message that Derbyshire and other parts of the country are still open for visitors?
Will my right hon. Friend also note that my constituency is a mixed urban and rural area, and confirm that those who are suffering—such as businesses and those providing holiday accommodation—will be eligible for relief? For example, if the Pentrich rock and blues bikers festival does not go ahead, the local town could lose £500,000 worth of business. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all businesses in such mixed areas will be eligible for relief if they are suffering?

Mr. Meacher: I repeat that many attractions remain open, and we believe that many more can open without risk. I understand that Derbyshire has been particularly affected. As with other areas, we are keen to see it opened up again where it is safe to do so. That is the message that I am giving all over the country.
With regard to the festival to which my hon. Friend referred, I must make it clear to the House that the statement that we have made is highly significant, and that it is also a preliminary one. It does not mean—the Government have never said that it meant—that there will be full compensation for everyone or every institution that has suffered economic loss. No Government are in a position to offer that. We need targeted measures for businesses at risk of going down, to keep them afloat and to provide them with the essential support to get through this situation. That is what the package is designed to do.

Jackie Ballard: Tomorrow afternoon, a crisis meeting is to be held in Porlock of representatives of Exmoor businesses. This situation affects not only those who provide tourist accommodation or services to tourists, but those who rely on passing trade from visitors to the national park, such as garages and pubs, whose takings have slumped dramatically.
Although the measures that the Minister has announced will be welcome, they will deal only with some of the short-term cash flow problems. They will not help people to pay their immediate bills for the basic necessities of life. Deferring payments will not deal with the long-term cash flow problems. What message would the Minister like me to pass on from the Government to those Exmoor businesses at their meeting tomorrow, to give them some hope for the future?

Mr. Meacher: I hope that the hon. Lady will pass on the message that the Government are listening, responding


and providing immediate emergency help in a manner that is directly relevant. I have already been around the country a good deal, listening, and I have included in the statement the matters of most concern that were expressed to me.
The hon. Lady is right to say that this is not just about tourist attractions. A vast range of small rural businesses, pubs, shops, bed and breakfasts and hotels have been affected. I have said that transport and haulage contractors can also gain benefit under this package. I do not believe that, as a result of the application of the package, people will still not be able to pay for the immediate necessities of life. If they had to meet new rate demands and demands for VAT and PAYE payments on the dot when they came in, however, they would be in trouble, and we are finding every possible means within the current legislative system to defer some of those payments and to relieve them of their immediate liability. Of course that will leave a greater problem in the longer term, and we shall consider that later on.

Mr. Tom Levitt: First, may I correct the impression that my right hon. Friend may have given? There has been a single outbreak in south Derbyshire, but the Peak district, whose tourism is dependent on 22 million visitors a year, is not affected by foot and mouth disease in any way and is open for business. Indeed, last Thursday I was at a conference for representatives of the Peak district tourism industry, who have put together a package that they wish to have implemented. My right hon. Friend may have read their proposals, because those which he announced today exactly match those of this vital tourism area.
Finally, will my right hon. Friend look at imaginative ways of making sure that some of our attractions reopen? I am thinking of Peveril castle in Castleton, which has been closed because it uses four sheep full-time to keep the grass down. If those sheep could be moved, the attraction could be reopened.

Mr. Meacher: I am sure that the people responsible for the four sheep will take note of the obvious solution and move them pretty quickly. On the general point about Derbyshire, I agree that is vital to stress that the Peak district, which has about 22 million visitors a year, is totally unaffected by the crisis. When I said that Derbyshire had suffered, I meant that many people in that attractive part of the country who are dependent on the tourist business have been hit secondarily, as their takings have been affected. The statement is designed to assist people in that position.

Mr. Robert Key: May I ask the Minister how best to address a short-term crisis with long-term environmental consequences, particularly in forestry? Christmas to Easter is the maximum planting period; many small businesses across rural Britain have commenced planting, only to be told that they are now in an infected area. In turn they have had to inform customers and clients that they have been in an infected area, even if they are not carrying the virus, which is putting their businesses in crisis. More importantly, we will lose a whole season's planting of trees if we are not careful.

Mr. Meacher: I appreciate that people are in that situation. Again, what I have said about rate relief and the assessment of the situation by revenue departments and Customs and Excise is relevant. Those people will be treated as sympathetically as possible concerning those statutory payments. If there are other means of assisting them, we are very glad to use them. Those who are right inside the infected areas are grievously afflicted; most of them are farmers, who get agreed compensation for animals that are slaughtered, but people who are not farmers, and do not have livestock, have also been seriously affected. The hon. Gentleman referred to a particular category to which we ought to pay further attention.

Mr. Eric Martlew: The reality in Cumbria is that the economy will not recover until we get on top of the disease. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Agriculture Minister that a senior MAFF official needs to go to Carlisle to take charge of the problem? As for the remit of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, the Cumbrian economy is badly damaged. It is not in meltdown, and it will recover, but the speed of that recovery will depend on the assistance that Cumbria receives from the Government. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the Chamber
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment agree to meet representatives of Cumbria county council when they come down here to explain what is necessary to get the Cumbrian economy back on its feet?

Mr. Meacher: Cumbria, and in particular the area around my hon. Friend's constituency, Carlisle, has been one of the most affected areas in the country. I repeat that we are extremely anxious to do what we can to help. I would be willing, I think, to meet a delegation that my hon. Friend brought from his constituency, so long as it was not treated as a precedent for my meeting everyone else from all over the country who comes from an infected area. One must be careful about these matters.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: The Minister will meet only those from Labour marginal seats.

Mr. Meacher: I am very happy to meet people from any kind of constituency, irrespective of the political nature of that constituency or the majority. People can get a little overheated about the issue, which is an extremely serious one. Public opinion outside is not assisted by some hon. Members treating it as political kick-about.
I am glad to help my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) in any way that I can. I suggest that he gets in touch with me with particular proposals. I do not want to offer tea and sympathy. People want practical help, and if they can suggest ways in which we can provide that, we will listen.

Mr. Alan Duncan: The Minister's statement began with a few dos and don'ts, then he gave a list of things that he was considering, studying and deferring, but the only item of substance in the statement was an element of rate relief. That was the guts of it. How exactly will that work? When will he publish clear rules and guidelines? What is his budget for


it? Will it be administered by the county layer or the borough layer? What do people have to prove in order to qualify? Exactly what details must they gather in order to secure the qualifying relief that he announced this afternoon, and when will it start?

Mr. Meacher: Those are perfectly fair questions, and I will give fair answers. Of course, we will produce those details. The statement was produced ultra-quickly, because that is what the public demanded. We will produce the answers to those questions very soon, and I mean very soon, because we want the scheme to be in operation as quickly as possible.
However, to dismiss the rest of the statement as a deferment or a consideration of this, that and the other is wrong. If the hon. Gentleman studies the detail, he will see that the cumulative impact is considerable. In particular, those who deal with the victims of the outbreak will receive case-by-case and very favourable and sympathetic assistance, not only from the revenue authorities, but from the banks and the Small Business Service. The hon. Gentleman should not dismiss that with a shake of his head. It is extremely important and will provide genuine assistance.

Mr. John McFall: I welcome the positive statement from my right hon. Friend, but mixed messages are being sent. Loch Lomond, in my area, depends heavily on tourists and the message to hill walkers is that it is unacceptable to be in the countryside, whereas the message to skiers is that it is acceptable. I welcome the public information campaign that the Government are about to undertake.
To talk about abandoning any elections would put out entirely the wrong message. We must remember that during the second world war, we had elections, while we were still prosecuting a war against the Japanese. In 1974 we had a three-day week, but we had an election, which was called by the Opposition. The message must be that the United Kingdom has not shut down—it is open for business seven days a week.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right. We need to clarify where people can safely go. I have said that repeatedly, and it should be made clear across the piece—given the earlier reference to skiing that may not be an appropriate metaphor. There should be clarity about all kinds of activities. We will provide a helpline so that if people still have doubts after reading the guidelines, they can get specific and detailed assistance from the helpline. On the question of elections, my hon. Friend put the case exactly. To suspend elections is a sign of crisis, which is out of all proportion to the state that we are in.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister not only dealt with short-term help, but spoke about a Bill that was published yesterday, .which is presumably supposed to deal with the long term. First, what is the extent of that Bill and will the aid that it provides apply throughout the United Kingdom? Secondly, what is his definition of a small rural settlement?

Mr. Meacher: The Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill, which we published on Friday, provides for an extension of mandatory 50 per cent. relief to village shops, pubs and garages under a

prescribed rateable value. We are considering to what extent we can fast-track the measure so that its benefits are not only available in the long term, but can apply in the immediate short term. If we can do that, we will. The general definition of a small parish settlement is a settlement with a population of fewer than 3,000 people.

Mr. Derek Foster: My right hon. Friend will be aware that his detailed but interim statement will be widely welcomed throughout north-east England. It will be especially welcomed in my Teesdale constituency, where most tourism businesses are micro-businesses that currently have devastating cash flow problems. I should like, however, to issue him with two constructive warnings. First, Ministers will need to have a firm grip to ensure that the clear message that he has given today rings out with equal clarity and cogency throughout the whole country and from all agencies. Secondly, Ministers must have the same grip in respect of money, if it is to get quickly to the people who need it.

Mr. Meacher: I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's constructive warnings. It is always hardest to give assistance to micro-businesses, which are at the end of the line of small and medium enterprises and are not always plugged into their information requirements. That is the purpose of the massive advertising programme that we are about to start—I hope that we will do so before the end of the week—in the newspapers and on the radio. It will be parallelled by similar campaigning abroad as soon as the British Tourist Authority can provide it.
With regard to my right hon. Friend's strictures for Ministers, I assure him that we are conducting a joined-up campaign within Whitehall. Ministers from several other Departments are members of the taskforce, and I have been in constant contact with them during the past few days. Whether it is MAFF, the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, all those other Departments are putting their weight behind the campaign, which is a good example of Government working through close co-operation.

Mr. Tim Collins: Given that Cumbria is the most affected county, will the Minister tell us whether a Cumbrian serves on his national taskforce? If not, will he consider appointing one? I welcome his remarks about business rate valuations and appeals against them, but is he aware that Ulverston Inland Revenue valuation office already has an 18-month waiting list for current cases? What can he do to speed that up? Furthermore, Cumbria county council, which is run by the Labour party, estimates that the region's economy is already losing £15 million a week. What is the estimated value of the package that he has announced for the nation for, say, the next three months?

Mr. Meacher: The membership of the rural taskforce, which is already large and has between 20 and 25 members, involves all relevant interests. If the taskforce had to be formed on a geographic basis, it would have to have members not only from Cumbria, but from Devon, Powys and the Welsh borders, and Dumfries and Galloway, as it is dealing with a UK effort. Such a requirement would become impossible, although that does not mean that we are not deeply aware that Cumbria is one of the two areas that has been most affected by the


outbreak. A great deal of our effort is now directed to it. On the speeding up of rate claims in Ulverston, we are, as I said, postponing for three months the period for receipt of rating appeals. If we can assist in the handling of those claims in any other ways, we shall certainly consider them.
The hon. Gentleman says that the losses in Cumbria amount to £15 million. I am sure he is right; they are considerable in many parts of the country. The thrust of my statement is that the best way to assist people is not to increase Government expenditure, though that is necessary in the immediate short term, but to get people to accept that they can safely go back into the countryside and spend their money as they wish at rural businesses, shops, B and Bs and hotels. That is what the statement is designed to achieve.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Foot and mouth strikes cloven-hoofed animals—ones that we are familiar with and others such as the antelope. The elephant can also be affected. My question is about zoos. Will special consideration be given to the plight of zoos, which are major visitor attractions? If the outbreak drags on for long, it could put some out of business.

Mr. Meacher: I am concerned about that. When I was in the east midlands, I met an owner who had closed her zoo. When I asked why, she said it was because of the fear of the disease spreading to it. I also asked where the nearest livestock were. She replied, "18 miles away." I then asked whether she had sought local veterinary advice, and I hope that she will do so. It is not for me to decide, but I believe that many nature reserves and zoos can open, although that depends on local advice.

Mr. David Curry: The Minister's recommendation to spirit away sheep will be studied with interest by the Minister of Agriculture.
The Minister talks about affected areas, but does he realise that many areas with no foot and mouth outbreak are none the less grievously affected and may be in an exclusion zone? He also talks about jobseeker's allowance. Does he realise that many people have a job, but have no work? Companies have no business but want to keep their staff, so will he consider whether jobseeker's allowance can be used to help people who remain technically employed, but are not earning wages because their companies cannot pay them? Are local authorities eligible for the Bellwin scheme in respect of significant expenditure incurred in managing elements of the foot and mouth outbreak?

Mr. Meacher: Of course I realise that many areas outside the immediately infected areas—what are sometimes called the designated areas, in a 10 km radius—are almost as acutely affected, because so many paths, buildings and access routes are closed. Again, we are content to accept local advice as to how far some of those areas, under some conditions, can be opened up. I repeat, however, that that is a matter for local veterinary advice. Assisting areas outside the infected areas is the whole point of my statement.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members took note of my statement, because many people do not understand that self-employed persons can, under certain conditions,

be entitled to jobseeker's allowance if they have no work. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a particular situation that I have not considered and it is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to take a view on the matter, but we shall certainly consider what might be done for companies that have no work as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak, but which do not want to lose their trained staff.
The Bellwin scheme is implemented under closely prescribed conditions, as is of course necessary, and it was used in the example of flooding. It may have application in this example. That, again, is a matter that we want closely to consider in the next few days.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people at Bolsover castle and Hardwick hall will be pleased about the preliminary statement made today and the money involved, because they contrast sharply with what happened during the pit strike of 1984 and 1985? In all those beleaguered pit communities, businesses went under and shops had to close, but there was not one penny piece from the Tories and, to show their thanks, they closed all the pits and made the problem even worse. Does he agree that the only reason he is able to hand out money today is that we have run the economy 10 times better than that lot did when they were in power?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend always makes a powerful political point forcefully and eloquently. We all have our views about the pit strike. It is certainly true that the current economic situation makes it easier for the Government to respond, and we shall do so as fully and as effectively as the circumstances require.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The owner of a local riding stables rang me this weekend to say that she is going out of business. We have not yet had a case of foot and mouth in Lincolnshire, but every footpath has been closed. What plans does the Minister have to work with county councils to ensure that we fight this disease where it is breaking; out, and can open footpaths and bridleways through arable areas? Could the Minister also answer the question that has been posed and tell us what the package is worth because it is important that relief is not spread too thinly over the whole country?

Mr. Meacher: We have been going for an hour and 10 minutes, and I keep repeating that the whole point of this statement and of the rural taskforce is to bring aid to people in those parts of the country outside the immediately infected areas who have been seriously hit by an economic downturn which has been no fault of their own. It has been dramatic, and they have no defence against it. We recognise that they need assistance. The best way to assist them is to get people back into those areas by making sure that they understand that it is safe. We must get rid of people's serious misconception, which is perhaps due to their feeling of patriotism and their desire to help the country. They thought the best way to do that was to keep out of the countryside, but we now know that that is wrong; and it has had a devastating effect. I hope that we will all take a non-partisan approach and join together to get that message across in all constituencies. Hon. Members will certainly have the assistance of Government through an advertising


campaign, and of the tourist boards and local authorities. We are all trying to ensure that we get across a clear message.
I have already answered the question about bridleways and footpaths. They will be opened if it is safe to do so. I have asked the Local Government Association and all local authorities to consider case by case whether they can open the footpaths in their area. I have no doubt that over the next week or two the great majority of them will be safely opened.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I thank the Minister for his statement. It will he warmly welcomed in my constituency, which has a large tourism industry. Some attractions are due to open at Easter, but the guidance and advice that they are receiving is unclear about whether they should open or not. Bearing in mind the fact that Easter is only three weeks away, will he ensure that clear guidance is given to those attractions, because we want them to open for business as quickly as possible?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend raises a point that has been of great concern to the Government. People are now making their Easter bookings. Many small rural businesses have a fairly hard time during the winter months, but in the spring and summer their earnings manage to pay back the winter losses. It is critical that they have the full benefit of visits and the increased custom that comes when people are enjoying themselves and taking recreation in the countryside. That is exactly why it is so important to get this message across, and why the Government are doing all in their power to ensure that people realise that they can safely visit those attractions this Easter.

Mr. David Heath: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be tempted to open access to farmland in some of the finest dairying areas in the country, in Somerset in my constituency. Does he realise that a great many businesses are not directly related to tourism but their turnover is nevertheless being decimated? That applies not only in small villages, but in the market towns to which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell Savours) referred. I hope that the Minister's package will deal with. that.
A specific problem relates to the Royal Bath and West show, which is due to open in a few weeks' time. It is far more than just an agricultural show; it is a major showcase and shop window for hundreds of rural businesses. Will the Minister meet representatives from the show to see how they can ensure that the show not only takes place, but takes place successfully?

Mr. Meacher: I have made it clear repeatedly that, while we want as much of the countryside as possible to be opened, we must make certain that that is done with caution. We must ensure that paths across farmland or pastures that might be used by livestock are not opened. Everything must be considered on a case-by-case basis,

and the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman may well be one in which such action would simply not be advisable. I entirely accept that it should not be undertaken until it is safe for that to happen.
According to the English Tourism Council, the tourism industry receives about £12 billion a year from visitors to the countryside, especially in spring and summer. It is an enormous industry, and it is crucial. We are not concerned just about tourism, however. I have mentioned haulage and transport, but other rural businesses not seen as directly connected with tourism would certainly be covered by my proposals.
It is not for me to say whether the royal agricultural show should take place. I suggest that its sponsors speak to local MAFF and veterinary officers, and identify conditions under which it could safely be opened. As long as those conditions can be met, no one will be more pleased than me if the show goes ahead; but if it is decided that they cannot be met, we must accept that judgment for safety reasons.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: As the Minister knows, I wrote to him last week commending two or three items that he has included in his package. They are good short-term measures, but they are only short-term. May I urge the Minister to look further? Direct financial compensation will be needed, owing to the disastrous position of many rural businesses.
Does the package cover Wales? Last week, Wales Office Ministers were not even invited to join the taskforce.

Mr. Meacher: As I said a few minutes ago, given the magnitude of the economic impact of this outbreak, no Government would be in a position to compensate each and every business for all the losses it has suffered. What we want to do is enable people to survive the crisis and not go under—to get to the end of it, and then begin to recover their economic strength. If more measures are needed to achieve that, we will certainly consider them.
I understand that a Welsh representative was at the meeting of the taskforce. I stand to be corrected if that is not so, but an invitation was certainly issued. Representatives of all devolved Administrations are invited, and a Welsh representative was present this morning.
I am keen for this to be a United Kingdom initiative, although the work of the taskforce primarily concerns England. It hardly needs to be said that foot and mouth is no respecter of boundaries, and I am keen that we should all act together: that will make our action more effective. It is, however, for the devolved Administrations to decide on the implementation of what is agreed in their own way.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed questions on the statement to continue for nearly an hour and 20 minutes, but we must now move on. I thank the Minister for his patience.

Points of Order

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Trade and Industry has in its possession a report into the affairs of a company called Hollis Industries plc. That company was also the centre of a separate investigation by the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges because of an allegation that an hon. Member had received an undisclosed payment of £200,000. The Committee, at the time, was unable fully to resolve the matter because of a lack of information.
The point of order is that that information does exist and that it forms part of the report which is held by the Department of Trade and Industry. However, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is refusing to publish the report, despite the fact that he has legal powers to do so under section 449 of the Companies Act 1985. The matter therefore constitutes a cover-up for the political convenience of the Government.
Mr. Speaker, can you tell me whether you have received from the Government an indication that they will now explain themselves to the House or provide the necessary documents, so that the House and its Select Committee can get to the bottom of this tangled web of relationships and payments between the late Robert Maxwell and the Labour party and Government of today?

Mr. Speaker: I have received no approach. That is all I can tell the right hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Adoption and Children Bill was published last Thursday, 15 March. On the front cover it states:
Explanatory Notes to the Bill … will be published separately as Bill 66".
The notes are still unavailable in the Vote Office, despite the fact that, yesterday, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), said that they would be made available. Consideration on Second Reading will occur next Monday, but the lack of those notes is making preparation for it extremely difficult.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Government. However, I hope that those documents are promptly made available to the hon. Lady and to any other hon. Member who is interested in the matter.

Standards and Privileges (Independent Appeals Body)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to implement the recommendations contained in the sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life
The Committee on Standards in Public Life, at the time in question, was chaired by Lord Neill, and the report reviews the first five years working of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. The report has been gathering dust for 15 months. The House has been given no opportunity formally to consider the Committee's recommendations, which I think should be debated before the end of this Parliament.
The report expressed concern that our in-house procedures for examining the conduct of hon. Members
fail to meet the minimum requirements of fairness",
as set out in the Nicholls report.
For hon. Members who are not familiar with the 1999 Nicholls report, I should say that it is a joint report on parliamentary privileges in the Lords and Commons by a Committee which was chaired by Lord Nicholls, who is a distinguished Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. Many distinguished Members of this place sat on that Committee, which had a broad spectrum of views on the way we should conduct our proceedings.
The House of course has a perfect right to determine its own rules on the way in which it conducts its affairs. However, I cannot imagine that any hon. Member would claim that the current system is entirely satisfactory. Lord Neill seeks not to change the rules, but to extend the right to an accused Member to appeal against a decision when that Member feels that his affairs have been treated with less concern than might be considered proper.
The Library informs me that, currently, the only way in which an hon. Member can challenge a decision of the Standards and Privileges Committee would be to go to the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg. That is a lengthy and expensive procedure that prolongs the agony and leaves a cloud hanging over the hon. Member concerned. An appeals procedure, as recommended by Lord Neill, would establish a degree of consistency by building up a body of case law and would help to take some of the politics out of these proceedings.
The first recommendation that my Bill would seek to adopt is that
in serious and contested decisions of the Standards and Privileges Committee the accused MP should have the right of appeal.
The report goes on to say that
it is likely that a contested case will involve a range of complex legal issues, with conflicts of evidence and legal debates on procedural points … which would be difficult for non-lawyers to control and decide.
For this reason, Lord Neill proposes that what he calls "an investigative tribunal" should be chaired by an independent lawyer such as a senior retired judge, advised on the parliamentary procedures involved by two or four senior Members of the House.
The second recommendation that I believe we should adopt is that Members who receive an adverse ruling and wish to challenge it should be provided with financial


assistance to pursue the appeal. It is only when the appeal is dismissed that the Committee should report to the House, along with any recommendations as to penalties.
I have raised these matters on more than one occasion with the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. He has said that he is in favour of these matters being debated and that we should examine the possibility of providing legal advice and expenses to Members who wish to challenge decisions.
Lord Neill is not the only one who has expressed concern about the way in which our current procedures are working. In his retirement report, Sir Gordon Downey—the former commissioner, who worked with the Committee for three years—warned of the dangers of tit-for-tat wars breaking out. One would have to have flown in from another planet not to realise that that prediction has already come to pass.
If we were to adopt Lord Neill's recommendations, I believe that they would bring our disciplinary procedures nearer the concept of natural justice and would go some way towards improving public perceptions of the way in which we conduct our affairs. Whether we like it or not, these are portrayed in the press in a manner that must give cause for the public to wonder precisely what this Chamber is about and where our priorities lie. I commend my Bill to the House.

Mr. Martin Bell: I am grateful for this opportunity. I shall speak briefly to answer the points of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and—in some limited measure—to oppose them, at least in their emphasis and timing. I do not wish to press this to a vote as it should not be a divisive or a dividing issue. I would be extremely reluctant to see the House divided—whipped or unwhipped—along party lines. What matters in this case primarily is not the feeling in the House, but the feeling in the country.
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the points that she raised and the particular perspective that she brings to the matter. She has had personal experience of the House's self-regulation, of the procedures of the commissioner and of the Committee, and of the consequences. There is no doubt that an appeals procedure must be introduced.
I draw the attention of the House to the 21st report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, which was agreed unanimously in the 1997–98 Session. The report provides exactly for such a court of appeal, in effect. I was

concerned about the case of my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Tatton. I believe that Sir Gordon Downey was thorough and fair in his investigations.
I believe, too, that the Committee did its best. I was not a member at the time, but I believe that it could stand by its report. However, an appeal procedure was not available. The commissioner is not a prosecutor and the Committee is not a court of law, but the effect of my predecessor's condemnation was akin to a criminal conviction: as he put it at the time, he was condemned to a life of penury and unemployment. That is why it is necessary for a suitable procedure to be put in place.
I very much hope that, between now and the end of the Session, the House will consider and adopt the suggestions made in the Bill. However, the emphasis must be on restoring public trust in public life. My goodness, we have a long way to go: I am not altogether convinced that this Parliament is held in higher esteem by the public at large than was the previous Parliament.
In the end, the answer lies not with commissioners, Committees and tribunals, but with ourselves. We hon. Members should register our interests. When in doubt, we should ask the commissioner, whom I believe to be one of the outstanding public servants of our time, and the registrar. We should not resort to lawyers, except for basic advice. We should certainly not resort to lawyers to obstruct the work of the Committee and the commission.
I think that the public will forgive us if we are too rigorous, and even nitpicking, in how we deal with these matters. People will not forgive us if we are not rigorous enough.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Douglas Hogg, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Patrick Nicholls and Sir Richard Body.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES (INDEPENDENT APPEALS BODY)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to implement the recommendations contained in the sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 69].

Orders of the Day — Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]

Orders for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have never met anyone yet who has not paid lip service to the need for improvements in special educational needs or disability rights. However, sympathy is of little comfort to parents and children, or to adult men and women who have a disability, when discrimination and lack of rights undermine their efforts to achieve equality of opportunity.
I had hoped, therefore, that we might have been able to build on the consensus that was developing in the House of Lords. Regrettably, the Opposition have decided to table an amendment, which means that I shall have to go into greater detail on the issues on which the amendment touches that could undermine that consensus.
It is not that there are no differences of opinion when it comes to achieving disability rights or bringing about equality of opportunity for people with special educational needs. Those differences exist, but debates can be conducted in a way that ensures that we secure the improvement—the step change—that the Bill promises. We can ensure that anomalies are ironed out, that obstacles are removed and that interests that can be promoted without undermining others' well-being are so promoted. [Interruption.] I am being heckled already, even though I plead guilty to saying nothing offensive or controversial—

Graham Brady: Or meaningful.

Mr. Blunkett: Or meaningful—I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that remark. I am always in favour of listening to the Opposition, even when they mumble away from a sedentary position.
I want to pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone for the way in which she conducted the Bill's proceedings in the Lords and for being prepared to listen and respond to requests for amendments and alterations in the code and the guidance. It is on that basis that we shall proceed. There were 92 amendments in the House of Lords. Although two thirds of them were technical, 27 were in response to concerns. I intend to continue conducting the Bill and the debate on the code and regulations in the same spirit.
I am grateful to the Under Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who has been conducting discussions with the various groups, including the consortiums, to get this right. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the

Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), led the disability rights taskforce towards finding a way forward through difficult areas in relation to further disability rights. We have been able to accept the taskforce's recommendations and can move forward on them.
The Bill builds on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It enhances disability rights and extends the role of the Disability Rights Commission and the rights established under the Learning and Skills Act 2000. However, there is still a long way to go. Securing rights, not simply through writing them into legislation, but through the changing of attitudes, will take time.
The Bill is about having an education service that is tailored to the needs of children and the wishes of parents. It squares the circle when one claim sometimes leads to accusations that another set of rights has been infringed. It will overcome the contradictions when words appear to mean one thing but actually mean something else entirely. It was Humpty Dumpty in "Alice Through the Looking-Glass" who said:
When I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.

Mr. John Bercow: That is not original.

Mr. Blunkett: It is not original because it is from Alice Through the Looking-Glass". [Laughter.] No wonder all the king's horses and all the king's men could not put them together again. What a silly intervention.

Mr. Bercow: It was a particularly silly quote.

Mr. Blunkett: It was not. I am all in favour of promoting English literature at its best. The reason I used the quote was very simple: today's reasoned amendment and the interventions of Baroness Blatch in the other place were predicated on a misunderstanding of terminology relating to the needs of the child. If the needs of the child, as put together in a statement, are used by schools to prevent that child from having access to the parents school of choice, words art turned on their head and have the very opposite effect on that child's needs. That is why the debate in the other place, and presumably this debate, need to be predicated on getting right the balance between parental wishes and the avoidance of damage to other children's education.
We must ensure that we protect others and that, if a school's ability to deliver education adequately is undermined, other facilities are found for youngsters with special educational needs. We must try our utmost to ensure that we have an integrated education service—not necessarily in terms of an individual being placed in a particular school or setting, but we must always try to integrate the opportunity of the child.
It is always difficult to match parents' needs and requirements to what is available, and it always will be because supply and demand are not perfect. However, all of us want to ensure that, through the maintenance of adequate special school facilities and through meeting specific—sometimes profound—needs, we get that balance right.

Kali Mountford: I thank my right hon. Friend for the award of more than £16 million that has just been made to Kirklees for special educational needs.


When considering how to use that money to enhance education for children with special needs, would it not be right for the local education authority to reflect carefully on the words that my right hon. Friend has just spoken and to ensure that the child is at the centre of policy? A range of provisions should be available in the area so that children with both mild and severe learning difficulties can be accommodated in the education system.

Mr. Blunkett: I agree with that. I am pleased that my hon. Friend's campaign to retain Lydgate school has, apparently, been so successful. I understand that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) visited the school, in a truly non-partisan fashion, to try to secure its future. We were all grateful for her intervention—as was the local council—[Interruption.] That caused a little kerfuffle and stir.

Mr. Bercow: Get on with it.

Mr. Blunkett: I am getting on with it. The hon. Gentleman should not be so irritable—[Interruption.]— and irritating. I was about to say something that he would be interested to hear.
Some right-wing thinkers and commentators on special needs education have something sensible to say. There is a tendency to label youngsters as having special educational needs when all that has happened is that they were poorly assessed as youngsters and poorly taught in school. If we can put that right, neither individuals nor schools will feel that the special educational needs label is required.
Furthermore, through baseline assessment and the development of the literacy strategy, we can tackle specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia, with which I have some familiarity. It is important to be able to identify and thus to address conditions such as dyspraxia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and, indeed, autism in ways that we have not done previously, to try to meet the needs of the child in both mainstream and special schools.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I hope that my right hon. Friend does not mind being squeezed by both sides of Huddersfield in such quick succession. Although some Labour Members disagree with some of Baroness Blatch's comments in another place. some parts of her speeches were good. She put her finger on the fact that there is a lack of consistent research into assessment and long-term outcomes—to consider what we actually do for those children over time. We need such research to check that evaluation is right, that what we are doing is right and that it leads to a successful outcome.

Mr. Blunkett: I have not spoken to my hon. Friend on this matter, but he inadvertently throws me up an easy ball. I agree with that point. That is why we are putting another £100,000 into research into dyslexia—as I can announce today. That will help us investigate causes and apply best practice. We need to do much more than we did in the past to get that right.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend consider the training possibilities for teachers? He probably knows more than me about the dimensions as regards training or courses.

Mr. Blunkett: Initial and in-service training programmes are crucial. I pay tribute to the work of

special educational needs co-ordinators—I shall refer to them henceforth as SENCOs—in learning about, spreading and reinforcing best practice in schools. A great deal of good work on that is taking place. A few years ago, that work would not have been done—that is a non-partisan approach to the situation.
Some parents are clearly worried whether, even with the best will in the world and the best training, their children will receive the help, support and resources that they need if there is a clearly identified, on-going problem. It is therefore not surprising that parents seek a statement when their children have severe special educational needs.
I want to make it absolutely clear that the controversy that arose last year about the consultation on the code of practice needs to be put to rest. We were seeking to ensure that a flexible and responsive way forward existed. Clear views were expressed across the range of opinions, suggesting that it would be better if we could secure specificity and clarity through the code of practice. I intend to read into the record our proposals on the code of practice
We shall make it clear that education authorities are required to specify provision in statements, as they always have been. We shall retain the requirement in the regulations for provision to be specified, matching the terms of the duty on education authorities set out in the Education Act 1996. The code will state clearly that statements should
describe clearly all of the child's special educational needs in full; set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet; specify clearly and in detail the provision required to meet each of the child's needs; describe the arrangements for setting shorter term objectives for the child; describe any special arrangements for the annual review of the statement; stress the importance of the school monitoring and evaluating the child's progress during the year; emphasise the importance of the local education authority monitoring the child's progress toward identified outcomes—with the school".
The guidance will make it clear that provision may often need to be expressed in terms of hours, equipment or personnel. It will make it absolutely clear that education authorities must not, in any circumstance, have a blanket policy not to quantify the provision in statements. We made a commitment on Report in the House of Lords that we would also enhance the guidance on assessments to make it clear that education authorities should not have blanket policies that prevent those from whom they seek advice from commenting on the amount of provision that they consider appropriate for a child.

Mr. Phil Willis: May I tell the Secretary of State how much that statement will be welcomed in the special needs world? Will the cash resources that must be made available to meet the provisions that he describes specifically come from the school's budget, or will they come from the local education authority? In either case, where will those resources emanate from?

Mr. Blunkett: Of course part of the required resources will travel with the statement in terms of the amount allocated. I am intent on not making this a party political matter, which is why it is important that we do not simply delegate resources to schools on a blanket basis, and it is why we must be sensitive to those needs and to retaining


authorities that can co-ordinate and deliver the necessary provision. Sufficient access funds must be allocated to education authorities, again, to be able to pick out where that investment is required. Those are fairly basic precepts of a system that, in the words of a former Conservative Select Committee Chairman, cannot have 24,000 bobbing corks on a murky sea.

Mrs. Theresa May: On that point, I am happy to reassure the Secretary of State that our proposals for free schools—although he did not utter that term, I assume that he was alluding to them—make it absolutely clear that the statementing function will remain with the local authority and that the local authority will be funded accordingly.

Mr. Blunkett: I am deeply grateful for that clarification. On 12 March—only eight days ago—we challenged the hon. Lady about that policy, and she put on record that all the funds would be delegated to schools. That is what she said. Now, at least some of the funds that the education authority—I am sorry, I meant local authority; as Humpty Dumpty rightly said, "Choose words carefully." Local authorities, as opposed to education authorities, which would be abolished, would presumably have the money that the hon. Lady mentioned to allocate according to need.
I wonder whether the authorities will have the access funds that are being provided. After all, this year alone, we are providing five times more money in access funds than we inherited. By 2003–04, we will provide 10 times more than we inherited, and that money will be applied to meet the needs of the individual child.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the code of practice, but may I raise the specific issue of children suffering from autistic spectrum disorders? I know that he will agree that provision for those children is not what it should be and that the problem goes back many years. In particular, does he agree that there is a problem in pre-school and nursery years when provision for those children often falls between the two stools of the health authority and the local education authority? That is highly unsatisfactory, so will he take this opportunity to spell out how the Bill will address those children's problems?

Mr. Blunkett: There has been a specific problem in that much of the good work that began—dare I say it—in the early 1970s when Baroness Thatcher held this portfolio has not been taken forward. Real moves were made by local government, central Government and the health service to develop good assessment programmes. Some of them remain, but they have not been accelerated or developed for many years. Therefore, we propose to allocate £25 million over the next three years to develop services in the early years. We shall train staff to ensure that a co-ordinator is linked to every facility for early-years provision. Sub-regional and regional provision will ensure that there can be monitoring, support work and the spreading of best practice. Some £11 million of that sum will go to the specific improvement of services, including joint multi-disciplinary assessment, so that we link the health, social services and education services in a positive regard.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is today publishing a White Paper on the needs of the young and old alike who have learning disabilities—or mental handicaps as we used to call them. I hope to be able to integrate the policies that we are developing with the proposals in the White Paper to give tens of thousands of those with learning difficulties a much better deal and their families much greater security as they grow older. We shall address both the educational and personal needs of those people.

Mr. Michael Jack: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way once more, but I would then like to make more progress in case I am accused of not having dealt with the Bill.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. In response to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), he described the route by which the money will reach the pupil, through both the local authority and the school. However, although he mentioned additional sources, he did not address the central issue of the amount. Is he saying that resources will not be a problem, whatever the terms of the statement?

Mr. Blunkett: Of course I am not. Were the resources always available to match supply and demand, we would be living in a happy third-term Labour Government. We are intent on winning the second term first. I can promise that the £3 billion for special needs, which is either devolved or provided through local education authorities, will be used effectively and wisely. Additional resources, both devolved and delegated to schools and enhanced by education authority resources, will be available. Specific funding, such as access funds, will also be provided. That is in addition to the quadrupling of capital spending, which, by allowing us to improve, remodel and rebuild schools, enables us do the job more effectively.
We want to promote centres of excellence in the special school system and to protect schools that offer an expertise. They should act as a resource that provides peripatetic support to pupils in other schools. We want to ensure that they offer high quality and excellence regionally and nationally. Progress has been made in the regional planning experiments. There cannot be a market in the provision of residential facilities for special needs purposes. There is no guaranteed supportive stream of funding for such facilities, and that knocks schools out. We need to use the co-ordinating structure at a regional level to secure a basic minimum provision that gives parents a choice when they consider their children's requirements and gives us the ability to retain that key expertise for the development of research and for delivery in the future.
In case people think that there has been a massive acceleration of the closure of residential facilities, let me state the facts. The proportion of children in special residential and day provision has remained almost the same in the past decade, at 1.2 per cent. Some 317 special schools closed in the 10 years between 1987 and 1997; 129 closed between 1997 and today, and 17 will close in the next year—a total of 146 closures within a five-year period. Seven schools are to open this year, which means that 38 new special schools will have opened in the same


five-year period. I make no party political point, but 317 schools closed in the 10 years from 1987 to 1997, and 146 will close in the past five years, with some new schools opening.

Mr. Roger Gale: Given what the Secretary of State says about the importance of special provision and the need to harness the undoubted expertise that is available, why does the Bill discriminate against non-maintained special schools such as the royal school for deaf children in my constituency? Why does he not want to harness that special expertise?

Mr. Blunkett: Not only are we not discriminating against non-maintained schools, but we have started to provide them with the devolved revenue and capital that we announced in the last two Budgets. That has not been a feature of any other Government, Labour or Conservative. We have reached out to the non-maintained sector and want to draw it into the regional planning process. If the hon. Gentleman feels that there is a specific problem concerning that school, I shall be happy to address it if he writes to me. We need to retain expertise in a range of provision that would otherwise not be available.
The Bill is designed to take us one step further on the road to getting this right; it is not the end of the story. I appeal to all hon. Members to ensure that it has a clear passage. I hope that, in the end, no one will be able to suggest that the Government or that Opposition sought party political gain. I certainly do not seek such gain, and I did not do so in the previous Session when mechanisms were used to delay the introduction of the measures under specific regulations.
The first 10 clauses apply only to England and Wales and cover special educational needs elements. Part II has 30 clauses and covers disability issues in education, with the exception of strategic planning and access functions in Scotland, which are dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. Otherwise, the measures in part II apply throughout Britain; they do not include Northern Ireland, because equality is a devolved function.
Clause 1 contains a commitment to strengthen the right to a mainstream place for children with special educational needs where parents wish it and where it is not incompatible with the education of other children.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If there is one part of the Bill about which I have a slight concern, it is that second caveat about the impact on other children. I am concerned that it might be used to justify not placing the emphasis on parental choice which my right hon. Friend and I would like to see.

Mr. Blunkett: That is one reason for our rejection of the reasoned amendment. A school needs to be able to show that it has made an effort to provide access and to accommodate a youngster. By being inclusive and gaining a reputation for supporting particular needs, some schools have found themselves swamped, and admissions have resulted in them being unable to fulfil the second condition in clause 1. Getting that right is a matter not simply of common sense but of reasonableness on the part of all those who take part in delivering an inclusive service. I have faith that people will get it right, but we need to provide protection to ensure that it happens in practice.
Clauses 2 and 3 place a duty on the education authority to provide parent partnership services and arrangements for resolving and preventing disputes, which are another important part of getting it right. Clauses 4 to 10 amend existing special educational needs frameworks to streamline the process for parents and to maximise the benefits for children. That means slimming down bureaucracy and administration and making access to rights easier.
Part II deals with disability discrimination in education. It covers discrimination in schools and in post-16 institutions—that aspect that was not dealt with in the Learning and Skills Act 2000—and contains miscellaneous supporting provisions. Clauses 11 to 16 place new duties on education authorities and schools, including independent and non-maintained special schools in England and Wales, and on local authorities, independent, self-governing and grant-aided schools in Scotland.
In England, as well as in Wales and Scotland, the new duties include not treating disabled pupils less favourably than pupils who are not disabled, unless there is justification. There is also a duty to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled pupils are not put at a substantial disadvantage.
Additionally, in England and Wales there is a new duty to plan strategically and to make progress in improving accessibility to premises and to the curriculum. I mentioned premises earlier, but access to the curriculum is also important. The development of information technology is making that possible in circumstances that did not exist a few years ago, and we should take full advantage of it.
Clauses 17 to 25 provide enforcement through the special educational needs and disability tribunal in England and Wales and through the sheriff court in Scotland. Clauses 26 to 29 place new duties on colleges, universities and local education authorities in relation to adult education, community education and youth services. Those duties did not exist before, and will be enforceable through the tribunal in England and Wales, and through the sheriff court in Scotland. For adults, enforcement will be through the county court, or its equivalent in Scotland.
It is important to change attitudes. We cannot bring about a step change in equality simply through legislation. We can set the framework, begin to change the way in which people see problems, and consider ways of overcoming them. We have sought to do so by extending part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, by developing the new deal for disabled people, and by creating greater inclusion through the changes in the work of Remploy introduced by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking.
We have provided much better non-repayable grants and support for students with disabilities in post-16 and higher education, including part-time and postgraduate students. That provision did not exist before. We can ensure that we apply extra resources to make that happen, as we committed ourselves to do in the Green Paper. However, in the end, there must be a change in attitude and outlook. This will be about seeing ways round problems rather than seeing the problem, and about ensuring that when we talk about an inclusive society, we


mean it for everyone. Let us all join together in taking yet one more step on the road to equality of opportunity, to inclusion and to social justice.

Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords] because it does not explicitly give priority to the special educational needs of the child and contains no mechanism for safeguarding a viable choice for parents between types of school.
This is an important debate because the measures in the Bill will have a significant impact on the educational opportunities and development of children with special educational needs, and particularly those with disabilities. Because this issue is so important, we need to ensure that we get the Bill right, that we discuss it properly and fully, and that we consider its implications. In that connection, I am sorry about the tone that the Secretary of State took in some of his comments on the Bill.
I am happy to tell the Secretary of State that we support the principle of the Bill—that is, its desire to widen access to mainstream education and to ensure that no artificial barriers are put in the way of providing all children with the education that meets their needs. Much of the Bill builds on work done by the previous Government in the Education Acts of 1981, 1993 and 1996, all of which dealt with special educational needs.
When considering any legislation of this kind, it is essential to ensure that the needs of the child are paramount, and that the education provided genuinely meets the child's needs and is in their best interests. That focus on the child has driven the work of my colleagues in another place when scrutinising, and tabling amendments to, the Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them and, in particular, to pay tribute to the work of Baroness Blatch, who has done sterling work in examining the detail of the Bill and suggesting improvements to it. In doing so, she has reflected the concerns and interests of parents of children with special educational needs, and the concerns and interests of disability organisations.
The Bill was initially promised in the Queen's Speech in 1999. We were then promised that the Government would publish a draft Bill, which did not materialise. That is a pity because a Bill such as this, which has a broad sweep of support in principle, is one where an early opportunity to consider a draft Bill would have been welcomed by many, including interest groups which, I know, regretted that they did not have that opportunity.
Now, however, we have a Bill to consider. As I have said, our approach is driven by the needs and interests of the child. Any approach to the issue must be characterised by a belief that the educational needs of all children must be accommodated; whatever the background, whatever the mental and physical needs or abilities of a child, our education system must be able to meet those needs and interests. It is important that the Bill ensures that schools, local education authorities and others act at all times in the best interests of the child.
At the moment, the Bill includes important provisions that ensure that the wishes of parents and the interests of other pupils in schools are heard. Indeed, it is necessary

to consider other pupils in a school and the impact that the inclusion of a child with special educational needs will have on them. There are many examples showing that the inclusion of a disabled child in a mainstream school has enormous benefits for the child and his or her peers. I visit many schools that are already doing good work to include disabled children. Wessex infants school in my constituency has a unit for hearing-impaired children. On Monday, I was in Piggott secondary school in my constituency, which has a number of pupils who are wheelchair users.
When I visit such schools, I am struck above all by other pupils' attitude—or perhaps I should say their lack of attitude, as they treat disabled children as they do any other member of the class, which is as it should it be. The inclusion of those pupils therefore has a very positive benefit. However, situations will arise in which the inclusion of a child with special educational needs can have a deleterious impact on the education of others. That is most likely to occur when a child has behavioural problems. The inclusion of a particularly disruptive child in a mainstream class can damage the education of others.
It is therefore right that the Bill includes consideration of the provision of efficient education for other children as well as parents' wishes. However, it does not include a provision which would require action to be taken specifically either in accordance with the special educational needs of the child or in his or her best interests. In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State talked about having to balance competing needs and provide an education service tailored to the needs of children. I agree that we need a service tailored to children's needs and that we must balance competing needs. The Bill is flawed because it does not set out and balance those competing needs.
My colleagues in another place tried without success to insert the phrase
the best interests of the child
in the Bill. Indeed, on Third Reading in another place, my noble Friend Baroness Blatch said:
The primary aim of the Bill is to serve the best interests of the child with special educational needs. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against that from the Government. We have had this debate at each stage of the Bill and Members of all parties have argued in favour of serving the best interests of the child."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 March 2001; Vol. 622, c. 1285.]
To most people, it is common sense that that should be the Bill's aim. So far, however, the Government have resisted pressure to include such a statement in the Bill, which is one reason why we tabled our amendment.
The importance of our approach is that it ensures that children with special educational needs are not compelled to attend a maintained school simply as part of some dogmatic drive that sets a target for inclusion above the needs of individual children. The needs of children must be assessed thoroughly, and then those children should be provided with the education that they need.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that the system should be structured to meet the needs of the individual child, rater than expecting the child to be structured to meet the needs of the system. In that context, would my hon. Friend consider visiting the admirable Maclntyre school in my constituency, headed by Helen


Willdridge, which caters magnificently for the interests of children with severe disabilities? It does a wonderful job, but it gets very little praise; it could do with some support.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and for rightly pointing out the excellent work done by the school in his constituency. I am happy to visit the school and see the work of the teachers there, and look forward to his further invitation to do so. I am happy to visit schools across the country to see the excellent work carried out in both mainstream and special schools. I make no apology to the secretary of State—who made one or two comments about the fact that I had visited a school in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford)—for going into schools and listening to parents and teachers about what they consider to be the issues that we politicians should address.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for coming to the Jubilee Room just before the debate started, to listen to the concerns of pupils, teachers and parents from Alderman Knight school in Gloucestershire, who feel that their school is under threat because of the Government's actions. Does she regret, as I do, that not a single Labour Front Bencher was able to call in, even for five minutes?

Mrs. May: Indeed. Those parents, teachers and children were speaking from their hearts and expressing their feelings about the proposed closure of the Alderman Knight school and other special schools in Gloucestershire. Later in my remarks I shall deal with the threat that hangs over so many special schools.

Mr. Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Among all the party political point scoring, is she concerned that as a result of the actions of the Conservative party we could end up losing the entire Bill? Is she concerned that the "needs of the child" condition has been used to deny children places in mainstream schools? That condition is already covered by protections in the Education Act 1996 and overarching legislation in the Children Act 1989. Disabilities charities are satisfied with the conditions set out in clause 1.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that non-party political intervention. I fully accept that the needs of the various parties in the equation must be balanced. That is why it is important that we do not ignore the best interests of the child by wiping out that condition. Our amendment seeks what Ministers in another place have accepted and what the Secretary of State has accepted in some of his comments. At the heart of the Bill should be the best interests of the child. It is sad that the Government will not write that into the Bill, as that would allow us to balance the competing needs.
I accept that achieving those best interests and balancing those needs is not always easy. There are occasions when parents are naturally protective of their children and fearful of their inclusion in mainstream schools, when that might be the right solution for a particular child.
There are also parents such as those whom I met at Thurlow Park school in Lambeth and the Lydgate special school in Colne Valley, and those whom I heard this

afternoon from Alderman Knight school in Gloucestershire, whose children have tried mainstream schools and have found that while they might be physically included in the mainstream school, they have often been excluded from full participation in the school and from realising their full potential. The same children have blossomed in the special school environment.
It is only common sense, and fair and just, to include the best interests of the child, alongside those of other children in the school and of parents. The latter two groups are already identified in the Bill.

Dr. Ladyman: Does not the hon. Lady fear that adding a further caveat to the Bill will be used by some local authorities as an opportunity to override the primacy of the wishes of parents, by saying that they know better what should happen to a child?

Mrs. May: No. The three parties would be identified, and the need to balance their interests would be written into the Bill. The alternative is the circumstances currently facing parents such as those whom I have mentioned, who want their children to be in special schools and believe that their decision is in their children's best interests, but are forced by a local authority that has an inclusion agenda to opt for a mainstream school.

Dr. Ladyman: Surely, without the caveat, the Bill ensures the primacy of the parents' wishes in respect not only of mainstream places but of special school places.

Mrs. May: As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), I intend to speak in more detail about special schools. Sadly, the primacy of the interests of special schools is not being maintained. The Bill does not allow it to continue or to be enhanced. We must ensure that children's best interests can be taken into consideration and that their needs are balanced. I accept that that balance can often be difficult to achieve, but if it is not clearly stated that the best interests of the child lie at the heart of the Bill, many children will be unable to develop their full potential. Children will be placed in mainstream education against their interests and their parents' wishes.
Some of my further points on the specifics of the Bill have also been made by colleagues in another place. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) spoke about the Bill's implications for education in independent special schools. Clause 1 expressly excludes local authorities from paying for places in independent special schools. We have expressed concerns in another place about preventing local authorities from funding such places and from taking into consideration the correct provision for a child and his or her best interests. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that he does not believe that that is the case, but clause 1 states that the cost of a place at an independent special school cannot be met by local education authorities.
I understand that Ministers gave assurances in another place that the ability to fund places in independent special schools is protected in legislation. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 contains provision enabling local authorities to buy places in independent schools, but that required regulations that the Government have been singularly slow to introduce. I assume that the Bill


revokes that provision anyway. The ability to pay for places in the independent sector is especially important in respect of children who require 24-hour residential places, which are often purchased from the independent sector. It is also important, however, with regard to specialist schools run by disabilities organisations, such as the royal school for deaf children in Margate, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet. If the Opposition are not convinced by the Government's reassurances that local authorities' ability to fund such places remains in place, we will seek to remove the relevant provision in clause 1, which states that proposed new section 316 in the Education Act 1996
does not prevent a child from being educated in … an independent school that is not a mainstream school … if the cost is met otherwise than by a local education authority.
There is, however, a wider threat to independent special schools. Constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) have drawn to my attention the problems that parents face in relation to the code of practice, which obliges local authorities to comply with the preference that is expressed by parents for a particular maintained special school. However, the code contains no duty to comply with parents' representations—there can be only representations, and not preferences—regarding independent special schools.
A further problem exists in relation to the information that local authorities provide to parents. Authorities are required to provide information on maintained special schools so that parents can express a preference, but they are not required to provide information on schools that are in the independent sector or that are provided by voluntary, charity or disabilities organisations. Many such excellent schools currently exist, including the royal school for deaf children in Margate, and we do not want the Bill to remove the ability to give children places in them.

Mr. Blunkett: We do not want to set any hares running and mislead people outside the House into believing that a measure is being withdrawn when that is explicitly not the case. That is especially important as it relates to what is currently available to parents. The implications of the hon. Lady's comments—the provisions to which she referred do not give necessarily give the same impression—are completely incorrect. We are not withdrawing any current right for a parent to have a place paid for in an appropriate school, whether it is independent or not. That right will apply if such a place is appropriate and the matter is discussed and agreed as part of the process that has been set out this afternoon.

Mrs. May: I am sure that the matter will be the subject of an interesting debate in Committee. I look forward to considering a Government amendment that clarifies the words in the Bill, which currently state that independent special school places cannot be paid for by a local education authority. If the Secretary of State is saying that that is not his intention—[Interruption.] He remarks that he said what he said, and I accept that, but I suggest that he asks his officials to consider the wording of clause 1. I do not believe that his intention, which I welcome, is reflected by that wording as it currently stands. I look forward to debating the matter further and to considering an appropriate amendment.
As I said, I welcome the Secretary of State's statement about the intention to keep independent special school places available to parents. I trust that he will consider the code of practice with regard to parents' ability to express a preference for an independent special school, as well as to the information that local authorities must make available to parents in respect of the special schools that are suitable for their children, whether they are in the independent or state sectors. I also welcome his comments about the terms of the code of practice in relation to the nature of the statement. Despite the letter that he circulated before Christmas, the issue has continued to cause anxiety among parents. We were previously placed in the difficult position of having to consider the Bill without knowing the content of the code. I am grateful to him for setting out what the Government intend to include in the code to ensure that the ability to specify provision in the statement remains.
Another continuing concern to which hon. Members have referred is the future of special schools. During the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Secretary of State said:
I want to make it absolutely clear that the inclusion agenda is not a wholesale closure if specialist facilities and schools that meet particular needs of youngsters and their families."—[Official Report, 8 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 259.]
I welcome that statement, but many Opposition Members, parents, teachers and governors are worried by the fact that a number of local education authorities have decided—some claim to be under behind-the-scenes pressure from the Department—to pursue an inclusion agenda that leads inexorably to the closure of special schools. I have visited a number of special schools, some of which were concerned about that issue and about the possibility of closure. Government figures show that there are now 1,000 fewer special schools places than there were in 1997. If parents are to have the real choice that the Government want to establish through the Bill by saying that parents' wishes should be met, there must be diversity of provision for children and it is vital that special schools can be maintained.
As more children are integrated into mainstream education where that is right for them, the number requiring special schools is falling. However, a more worrying process is at work. Local education authorities simply stop statementing children or so drag their feet over statementing that children do not enter special schools. Those schools then close, not because parents have chosen another school but through a process of stealth. That point was specifically made to me by the parents and governors I saw from Alderman Knight special school in Gloucestershire, who said that that was happening in the county.
Parents of children at Kingswode Hoe school in Colchester, whom I met recently with my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), are also concerned about that. In a letter to the Secretary of State, a member of the Kingswode Hoe action group said:
To apply the limited success stories and suggest Inclusion works for all children with special needs is a gross misinterpretation of the truth. One cannot apply a blanket rule for all children.
Parents of children Who attend special needs schools recognise the difference in education that they have to offer. Many parents may have experienced a failed Mainstream education for their special needs children who then subsequently flourish in a Special needs school setting. There is no need for radical change. Surely the task in hand would be to improve even more on what we already have rather than set a policy in motion which may adversely affect these young more vulnerable members of our society.


The same concern has also been raised by parents from Alderman Knight and other special schools—those who are members of the Gloucestershire special schools protection league—who clearly make their point:
Inclusion has never been the issue!
Our dispute with the LEA concerns:
The right of parents to choose the most appropriate type of provision for their child.
The right of each child to be educated in an environment in which they feel secure and can realise their potential.
We also do not expect miracles. We do, however, expect that after several years of little progress and often misery for the child, it should be recognised that this provision"—
that is, mainstream provision—
is not appropriate and that transfer to a special school should be routine. We do not expect to encounter obstruction and even downright lies in support of a dubious political objective.
Surely it can be of little surprise to anyone that parents are united in support of these excellent schools in which we have seen our children flourish, when so many of us have direct experience of the failure of the alternative on offer.
That is where the balanced approach is important.
I fully accept that, over the years, some children with special educational needs and some disabled children who would have flourished in the mainstream have not had the opportunity to go into mainstream education and develop their potential in the way that was right for them. However, in remedying that wrong, we must make sure that we do not create another wrong for those children for whom special schools are the appropriate provision. Ensuring that that choice is available is extremely important.
We must also ensure that the needs and best interests of the child are at the heart of our actions. The wishes of the parents must be accommodated in the best interests of the child when it is right for that child to attend a special school.
I want briefly to touch on two issues. The first is the cost implications of the Bill, which have been referred to in a number of interventions. The Government have given the impression that putting the Bill into practice will have few cost implications, but if its consequence is a significant shift towards more children with special educational needs being educated in the mainstream, there certainly will be a cost implication, and inclusion without the necessary resources is less likely to work. That is not in the interests of the child and it will also put enormous strain on teachers.
As a result, a child with special educational needs or other children in the class may not receive the quality of education that they deserve. I do not want the Bill to raise parents' expectations only for them to be dashed because the resourcing and funding needed to make it work properly are not available and because the Government have not made a proper assessment of the implications of the cost of that legislation.
Secondly, we must also ensure that teachers are involved in decisions on whether educating a particular child in the mainstream will affect the education of other children. It is important that teachers' professional judgment is involved in that decision and in making such assessments.
The official Opposition support the Bill's intention to ensure that children with special educational needs whose interest will best be met by a place in a mainstream school

are able to access such a place, but we must not be driven by some dogmatic inclusion agenda that pursues inclusion for its own sake rather than for the benefit of children. We shall give the Bill the fair and detailed consideration that it deserves and I hope that the Secretary of State will respond, as he said this afternoon he would, to the concerns that we have raised. Above all, our comments and any amendments that we might table will be driven simply by the best interests of the child.

Mr. Roger Berry: I welcome the Bill with great enthusiasm for two simple reasons—it will strengthen the right to mainstream education for disabled children and children with special educational needs, where their parents wish it, and, under part II, it will outlaw discrimination in education on the ground of disability. Thus, it will put right a major flaw in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—namely, the exclusion of education from part III
The objective for us all is to create a society in which everyone can participate fully as equal citizens, but we have a long way to go in respect of disabled people, who are twice as likely to be out of work and to have no formal qualifications. Education provision for disabled children and disabled adults is central, and appropriate education in an environment free of discrimination is essential, as it is the foundation on which so much else rests.
Therefore, I welcome the great changes being introduced by this radical and progressive measure. I congratulate the Government wholeheartedly on the Bill, the high priority they have given it and on the extensive consultation. It has given rise to much debate and my files, like those of every other hon. Member, are full of comments from the detailed consultation exercises.
The Government have done the most thorough job imaginable and the consultation has secured overwhelming support for the Bill. Therefore, I was genuinely saddened and not a little angry to read the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, which asks hon. Members to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. I know of no organisation in the country, apart from the Conservative party, that wants the measure to be blocked tonight.
The special education consortium, which represents 247 bodies including the major disability organisations, parents' groups, children's groups and local authorities, says, "We want this Bill and we want it now." I have the privilege to be secretary of the all-party disablement group. I therefore checked our minutes carefully and the SEC told us that this is the Bill that
the sector had wanted since 1995"—
the year of the much-flawed Disability Discrimination Act.
The SEC wants the Bill on the statute book
at the earliest possible opportunity".
The organisation, which speaks for virtually every disability group and for parents, local authorities and children, is not the only one that wants the Bill. The Disability Rights Commission has said:
Disabled children and adults, and their families, would find it hard to understand if such an excellent piece of legislation did not reach the statute book.


The Royal National Institute for the Blind strongly welcomes the Bill and has said:
It is vital that the Bill becomes law as soon as possible.
The Royal National Institute for Deaf People very much welcomes the Bill and has also said:
It is vital that the Bill becomes law as soon as possible.
Scope has said that the Bill
is a huge step forward
and wants it to have a "swift passage". The Local Government Association has welcomed the Bill, and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has called for no delay in its implementation. Skill, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities,
welcomes the legislation warmly
and wants to see it become law as soon as possible. I will happily give way if the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) can name one organisation of disabled people or one parents' organisation that does not want the Bill to get a Second Reading.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Surely it is clear that the Conservative party welcomes the Bill in general terms, because it builds on our own success with the three Bills that we introduced in our time in government that dealt with special educational needs. However, we question certain aspects of the Bill, and the purpose of any amendment on Second Reading is to make those concerns concrete, which is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Berry: The amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition states:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill".

Mr. St. Aubyn: Because.

Mr. Berry: Yes, the amendment gives reasons, but a little more effort would have made its terms slightly more persuasive. It does not say that the Conservatives welcome the Second Reading of the Bill and will propose amendments in Committee to improve it further.

Mr. Gale: I think that I am right in saying that every organisation that the hon. Gentleman has prayed in aid, while welcoming the Bill, has also sought amendments to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made a point relating to a school in my constituency. Conservative Members have learned the hard way that the Government do not listen and will not accept amendments, even intelligent amendments, to Bills, which is why we must go down a road that none of us would choose to go down. If the Government would listen, things would be different.

Mr. Berry: Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had thought that this was a Second Reading debate. I shall show that in the other place the Government have listened on a number of matters, and I am pleased about that. I may even, if tempted, list areas where I think there is scope for modest refinement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".] My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the outset of the debate that these are extremely important matters,

so presumably intelligent adults, let alone Members of the House, may offer a few views. I am simply saying that the Opposition have tabled an amendment to decline a Second Reading to the Bill when every disability organisation supports it.

Mrs. May: The purpose of a Second Reading debate is to consider the principle behind a Bill. One of the key principles of the Bill that concerns us is that it does not put the best interests of the child at the heart of the legislation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best interests of the child should be the aim of the Bill?

Mr. Berry: Education legislation should be clear on what education authorities are supposed to do, and of course the interests of the child are extremely important. Clearly, I have touched a raw nerve, and I was hoping to be non-political. I was slightly confused by the Opposition amendment. Perhaps they are now saying that they will support Second Reading.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman went through a long list of charities that he reckons support the Bill. Not one of those charities has contacted me in Gloucestershire. Could it be because they are beginning to see the reality of the Government's policy through the wholesale closure—despite the Secretary of State's denial—of special schools in the county? Is that why those organisations in Gloucestershire do not support the Bill?

Mr. Berry: I was not "reckoning" that those organisations support the Bill: I was quoting what they had said to me in writing. I can let the hon. Gentleman have my file of letters. With respect, if the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the position taken on the Bill by those organisations that is his problem.

Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend forgets to tell Conservative Members that the special education consortium not only welcomes the Bill, but it is so anxious to get the legislation that it is seeking no further amendments to it.

Mr. Berry: Indeed, that is correct.
Part I amends the current framework for special educational needs, and most of the debate has so far focused on that. I want to say a few words about part II, which amends the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Mr. Tom Levitt: I can produce written evidence from two organisations that would not want to be missed off my hon. Friend's list. The Local Government Association and the National Association of Head Teachers have written to all Members supporting the Bill.

Mr. Berry: I am extremely grateful for that contribution. I do not of know about the postal services in Tewkesbury, but everyone else seems to be aware of the support of those organisations.
Part II addresses a major gap in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which did not embrace education in equal rights legislation. The Bill is a major


plank in the Government's strategy to secure comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people.
I am tempted to say—I cannot resist temptation—that the 1995 Act was not introduced because the Government of the day wanted it. Indeed, they had been assiduous in trying to prevent such legislation. They had blocked a previous Bill in such a ham-fisted and devious manner that it led to a massive public outcry, and the DDA was introduced on the hoof. It is frequently pointed out that when the Bill came back from the other place there were more pages of amendments tabled by the then Government to their own legislation than there were pages in the original Bill. I mention that merely to point out that the DDA was drafted on the hoof by a Government who did not want it. It is hardly surprising that the DDA is seriously flawed: it did not provide for a Disability Rights Commission; it contained a too narrow definition of disability and a small firm exemption under the employment provisions; and it excluded education.
After the election, the Government set up the taskforce to consider how best to proceed—initially, with the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission. That provision reached the statute book in 1999, and the commission opened its doors in April last year. The Government have recently responded to the taskforce's recommendations for further improvements in legislation. It is important to put this Bill in that context.
I am delighted that, on the definition of disability, the DDA is to be extended to provide legal protection to those with non-symptomatic cancer or HIV, that small employers are to be covered, and that, before Christmas, in the other place, the Government inrtroduced this Bill on access to education. This is part of wider and substantial disability agenda.
There is still a lot to do, as my right hon. Friend said, and we could all raise some issues for attention in the future. However, by any fair assessment, there is a dramatic contrast between the Governnment's policies on disability and those of their predecessor. I am proud to be a supporter of a Government with such a record. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues, past and present, who have brought about these progressive changes. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). who is present, and her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), have worked on the disability rights agenda, and I am proud to be associated with them. They have done and are doing a fantastic job.
I want to refer to funding, and particularly the schools access initiative, which my right hon. Friend has already mentioned. Although we all know that the provision of more public money is not the only way in which to improve people's lives, on many occasions it makes a fair amount of difference, and this initiative is a classic example of that.
While I am in the mood for congratulation, let me congratulate Scope and the National Union of Teachers. Readers of the New Statesman—who, no doubt, include Members in all corners of the Chamber—will have observed an advertisement in this week's issue congratulating the Government on their spending programmes for the schools access initiative. One of the first documents that I read on becoming a Member of

Parliament in 1992 was a report produced by Scope and the NUT, entitled "Within Reach." It basically said "We really do not know very much about access". A year later, the two organisations produced a report telling us rather more about the subject—and, I am delighted to say, the schools access, initiative was established by the last Government as a result.
The New Statesman advertisement reminds me that allocations have increased dramatically under the present Government. My right hon. Friend has already given the figures. The fact that we are currently spending five times more on the access initiative than the last Government spent during their last year in office, and that in two years' time we shall be spending 10 times as much, illustrates the priority that we have attached to the programme. It is a wonderful programme, which deals with key access issues. The standards fund for special educational needs has also been increased dramatically: this year it will be three times larger than it was during the final year of the last Government.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Conservatives also consider the report on schools access to be constructive and worth while? It is not merely a paean of praise for the past practice of either Government; it issues some interesting and pointed directions for the future, suggesting that there should be—as it were—better access to the access initiative, and that it should be distributed more equitably in that more schools should be made aware of it.
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that as constructive comment, which is what it was intended to be?

Mr. Berry: With pleasure: I agree with all that the hon. Gentleman has said.
As we know, the Bill was considered at length in the other place. I now recognise the relevance of my right hon. Friend's invocation of Humpty Dumpty: it was especially apt in view of what I have heard so far, and, more important, what I discovered when I read the record of debates in the other place.
The Government have given a number of welcome undertakings as a result of those debates, but I feel that three issues are still worthy of comment. Clause 1 is a Humpty Dumpty clause, is it not? To a large extent, it is a question of how people interpret certain words and phrases. Under the Bill as it stands, a pupil with special educational needs and a statement must be educated in a mainstream school, unless that is incompatible with the wishes of the parent or the efficient education of other children. I realise that the Opposition would like a third condition to be included. May I make a comment that I do not intend to be dogmatic? It relates to an issue that others have raised. Of course I respect the wishes of parents, but it must be said that the wishes of a parent and those of a child are not exactly the same.
In the other place, there was much discussion of how the child's best interests and the wishes of the child—the child's voice—could be taken into account. Comparisons were made with the provisions of the Children Act 1989, which require account to be taken of the child's wishes. The Government argued that, if such a provision were included in this Bill, children who could benefit from inclusion could be prevented from gaining a mainstream place. That is possible, but it is not entirely obvious that it would happen.
I welcome the Government's assurance that the child's views would be given clear prominence, as an important principle in the revised code of practice. This is a difficult problem to which I can offer no simple solution, but which we need to address increasingly as society pays more attention to the views of children as well as those of their parents.
I note that the taskforce did not recommend the retention of the condition relating to efficient education. I agree with my noble Friends Lord Ashley, Lord Morris and Lord Rix—I usually agree with them on matters such as this—that reference to efficient education could leave a loophole enabling local education authorities to exclude from mainstream education SEN children who would otherwise benefit from it. However, I acknowledge the Government's assurance that mainstream places would be refused in only a small number of cases.
My final reservation is one that some of my colleagues are expecting. The Bill refers to the remedies available to disabled children who experience discrimination. The Government have argued that if a child experiences discrimination on the ground of disability, the educational remedy is appropriate. I consider that remedy to be the most important, but I agree with what was said about the issue in the other place. It was pointed out there that if a child were refused a place on a school trip on the ground of race or gender, the case could be pursued, with financial compensation being a remedy at the end of the day. Under the Bill, if a child were refused a place on the trip on the ground of disability, financial compensation would not be possible.
I appreciate that, given the way in which the new tribunals are being structured, the Government rightly want to minimise antagonism and conflict. I am reluctant to say more than this: there is currently an inequity in the approach to discrimination in education, which depends on whether that discrimination takes place on the ground of disability or on the ground of race or gender. I hope that the maximum range of remedies will be considered in regard to disability discrimination.
Despite those small reservations, I think that the Bill constitutes a massive step forward. More important, disability organisations, parents' groups and local education authorities see it as such. A number of organisations have gone out of their way to tell most Members that they think it should be passed as quickly as possible, and I hope that no Member will do anything to prevent that this evening. This is a landmark Bill, which should be supported with enthusiasm.

Mr. Phil Willis: 1 welcome the Bill, and pay tribute to the way in which it was handled in another place. It was handled in just the way a Bill of such sensitivity should be handled. I am thinking especially of the Government's responses to criticisms from, in particular, lobbying organisations. Bills of this kind should not be dealt with in a party political fashion. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) was right to say that the Bill is yet another staging post along the route on which we started in 1979 with the Warnock report, and on which we have travelled since.
Liberal Democrat Members welcome the Bill's two underlying themes. First, disability should never be a barrier to access to mainstream education. I do not think that any hon. Member would not support that principle. Secondly, unlike some official Opposition Members, we believe that there should be a presumption that, whenever possible, children with special educational needs or with disabilities should be educated with their peers. We believe that that is an issue of natural justice that should be enshrined in law, and that the Bill goes some way towards meeting that goal.
We welcome many of the Bill's provisions. The establishment of parent partnerships to try to resolve disputes is one of the issues that has bedevilled special needs education for so long. I have been closely associated with that issue for many years. Nothing is more unseemly than to hi ye a dispute about where to place a child with special needs or to argue about a child's statement. There have often been such disputes, and we welcome action to resolve them.
The Government expect that the Bill will enable, both at local education authority level and at school level, planning for access for youngsters with special educational needs. That issue has not been mentioned so far in the debate, but we welcome that provision. However, in Committee we shall be arguing for a proper implementation timetable. It is no good simply saying that we should have planning. As we know from so much experience in schools and local education authorities, planning can become a distant ambition rather than a means of producing tangible outcomes.
Liberal Democrat Members also support the Bill's minor provision on the duty to inform parents if their child has a special educational need. It might seem obvious, but there are still many cases in which schools do not inform parents of such needs, even when children have been placed on stage 1 or stage 2 of the register. It is important that parents should be informed, although it is often hurtful to parents to receive the information.
We welcome the fact that the Bill addresses the issue of disability discrimination, to which I shall return later in my speech. We particularly welcome removal of the third caveat, in section 316 of the Education Act 1996, on the efficient use of resources. That was a cop-out clause, then section, and we are delighted that it is being removed.
We particularly welcome the emendations to section 329 in the 1996 Act, as they will allow schools or other responsible bodies to begin the statementing process. So often, relying solely on parents or on some other type of intervention to begin the process has bedevilled the child's best interests. I hope that, in her reply, the Minister will clarify whether parents will have the right to veto the process once it has been started by a school. I support the principle of allowing schools to begin the process, but we should know where the duty of the school or other responsible body—such as a health authority—to the child begins and where the parents' duty ends.
I closely followed the debate on the Bill in the other place. Lord Northbourne, Lord Rix, Lord Ashley, Baroness Darcy de Knaythe and my hon. Friend Baroness Sharp of Guildford made particularly cogent contributions in speaking to various amendments. Lords Rix and Ashley have of course contributed for many years to disability rights and special needs legislation. We appreciate their many contributions.
Despite what I shall say in a moment, I think that it would be churlish not to express our thanks to Baroness Blatch. Her scrutiny of the Bill in another place was, to put it mildly, very thorough, and it was consistent with much work done by previous Conservative Administrations since 1981. Indeed, the way in which those Administrations progressed from Baroness Warnock's 1979 report to the 1981, 1993 and 1996 Education Acts, to make special needs a real issue in schools, was one of the hallmarks of those Administrations—[interruption.] Perhaps it was too good to last.
I think that the hon. Member for Kingswood was a little churlish in his comments on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Although one tends to remember the unseemly scenes of father and daughter fighting that was important legislation. I pay tribute to the fact that it was passed.
How sad, however, that on Third Reading in the other place, and, today, on Second Reading in this place, the official Opposition should sink so low as to seek to stop the Bill's progress. It is especially sad when one considers the record of those past Governments and the record of some of their colleagues in the other place.
Baroness Blatch and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) purport to raise as their standard the best interests of the child, and they do so as if the best interests of the child were not already enshrined in a host of legislation. It is sad that anyone working with children in schools, local authorities or the independent sector should not have children's best interests at heart. Although I appreciate why Conservative Members are seeking to make the change, it is sad that we should have to make such provision in legislation.
Conservative Members believe that the omission of such provision in the Bill is sufficient reason to deny all children with special educational needs; and disabilities the opportunities that the Bill would make possible. Denying them that opportunity would be the consequence of accepting Conservative Members' reasoned amendment.
The amendment is only a hollow gesture. The best interests of the child will be served by guaranteeing that the Bill receives Royal Assent before the general election. Every one of the special needs and disability lobbyists who have been involved in the issue over very many years will never forgive Conservative Members if they halt the Bill's progress.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I think that the hon. Gentleman has the issue upside down. People who have children with special educational needs are concerned that their children will not receive an appropriate education. Can he also tell us why the Liberal Democrats in Gloucestershire have driven through a closure programme since publication of the Government's Green Paper?

Mr. Willis: I cannot speak for my colleagues in Gloucestershire or elsewhere; they must speak for themselves. Clearly, they are elected locally to act in the best interests of youngsters in Gloucestershire, and I have no doubt that they have done so to the very best of their abilities.

Mr. Robertson: They have done their best to close schools.

Mr. Willis: As the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said, the record of the previous Conservative

Government shows that as many special schools closed between 1992 to 1997 as between 1997 and now. I am not in a position to know whether it was right or wrong to close those schools. The reality is that schools close as the education system moves on. I have often been involved in school closures.

Mr. John Hayes: The Secretary of State did not relate the number of school closures to demand. The truth is that over the 15-year period detailed by the Secretary of State, the number of statements has risen dramatically and our understanding, identification and analysis of special needs have moved on apace. To quote numbers irrespective, and out of the context, of changing demand is disingenuous and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will dissociate himself from it.

Mr. Willis: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. He surprises me, as he has not done his homework. He has looked at one side of the argument. He is right that the number of statements has increased dramatically, but the number of students who are in special schools has remained fairly constant, at about 98,000 to 100,000 for each of the past 10 years. To answer the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), that means that in some places special schools will close and in others they will open. That is the nature of an evolving education system. We must not simply create an education system in aspic. However, I will return to the subject of special schools; no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be delighted with what I have to say.

Miss Anne Begg: Just because the number of children with statements has risen does not necessarily mean that the desire for places in special schools has risen. There is a recognition that many children in mainstream education need records of need, in Scotland, or statements, in England and Wales.

Mr. Willis: I am pleased to echo the hon. Lady's comments.
The one thing that I thought was missing from the speech of the hon. Member for Maidenhead was how special needs and the provisions of disability legislation would he delivered in free-for-all schools. How is that to be achieved? We have had two U-turns within eight days on the free schools policy, but there has been a dramatic U-turn today also. Suddenly, special needs responsibility is no longer to be completely devolved to schools, but will be held by the successor body.

Mr. Boswell: I hope that we can now close this silly argument. Right from the first day the free schools policy was enunciated, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I have made it clear that the assessment and statementing process will remain a local authority function. There is nothing new. It is merely a reiteration of something that we decided more than 18 months ago.

Mr. Willis: That is yet another revelation; something that many hon. Members will have heard for the first time. The £540 extra that every school is to get for every student includes all the funding for special needs, transport and every other administrative cost. The Conservatives cannot say on the one hand that they will


give that to schools and, on the other, that they will keep the most expensive functions centrally. Where is the money to come from? Perhaps the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) will explain later. Some 24,500 separate schools—each with its own independent admissions policy—would mean that special educational needs and disabilities provision would be put back at least 10, if not 20, years. That is too horrendous to contemplate.

Mr. Levitt: Does the hon. Gentleman find it odd that the Conservatives want to give these powers to local authorities, having abolished the need for such local authority powers in legislation they passed when in government?

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go further. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would wish me to get back to the Bill.
My noble Friend Baroness Sharp was castigated on Third Reading in the House of Lords for changing her mind in respect of supporting the amendment on the interests of the child that was proposed to clause 1. I defend her, because she bothered to listen to all the organisations that wanted the amendment dropped, and responded accordingly. She was right not to allow an amendment in the House of Lords that would have ping-ponged here and back again and would have had exactly the effect that the hon. Member for Maidenhead and her hon. Friends want—to delay the Bill and to prevent it being enacted before the general election. That is shameful, and I am delighted that my noble Friend was tough enough to stand up to the bullies in the other place.

Mr. Hayes: I have enormous admiration for the hon. Gentleman's understanding of and commitment to these subjects, but he is again being slightly disingenuous. The Conservative party did not choose when to propose the Bill. The Conservative party will not choose when to hold the general election. Frankly, to suggest that the squeezing of the Bill into its narrow timetable is somehow the responsibility of the official Opposition is a distortion of the facts.

Mr. Willis: That intervention was not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. He knows that my hon. Friends and I met the Secretary of State nearly 18 months ago to give our support to the Bill and to ensure that it reached the statute book. We were committed to ensuring that we tabled amendments and debated the principal issues, but we wanted to see the Bill on the statute book.
During the Third Reading debate in the House of Lords, we were able to extract from the Government an important change to the original clause 12, which would have driven a coach and horses through attempts to make sure that young people were able to get mainstream education. That clause contained a number of caveats—concerning, for instance, the need to maintain academic, musical, sporting and other standards, and the financial resources available to the responsible body—all of which would have undermined exactly what the Government, my party and, I hope, the official Opposition are trying to do with the Bill.
My association with special needs education goes back a long way. I have spent almost the whole of my life in schools where there have been significant populations of

disadvantaged youngsters and children with special needs. Working in Chapeltown in the late 1960s convinced me that unless we could educate the whole community together—wherever they came from and whatever their needs or disabilities—frankly, we would breed dysfunctional communities. It is a point of principle to me and my colleagues that inclusive education goes to the heart of the education system.
As head of two schools in Middlesbrough and Leeds, I found it interesting to see the development take place. When I see the posturing of certain hon. Members, I think of those young people who have been denied access to mainstream education simply because of the local authority area in which they lived: the post code lottery. That cannot be right and, hopefully, the Bill—and in particular the comments of the Secretary of State earlier—will have made that clear.
Current legislation may have been well intended, but the caveats in section 2 of the 1981 Act—repeated by section 316 of the 1996 Act—allowed LEAs and schools to refuse entry to children on the grounds of the efficient use of resources. That was not right. Ricky Corner, a youngster severely disabled by thalidomide, was in my school in Middlesbrough 20 years ago. He would not have been allowed to sit on the science bench, using his mouth and toes to do his science experiments, in a great number of schools; but thanks to an enlightened local authorityCleveland—and the dedicated staff whom I worked with, he could at ours. That was 20 years ago.
Carrie, a girl with Down's syndrome—she caused a lot of work for me—and severe behavioural difficulties would not have been allowed to enter most schools in Leeds when I was there in the 1980s, but thanks to the support of the local authority and dedicated staff, she could enter ours.
Mark was totally blind and came from one of the most deprived estates in Leeds. With his inspirational teacher at the school for the blind, he fought to be allowed to enter mainstream education. He would not now be a lawyer in one of London's main firms had it not been for inclusive education and the results that it achieved. I rejected that young man because my school had four blocks, each of which had stairs. I did not think that Mark would be able to cope, but other people persuaded us that he would cope, and that he should be allowed to cope. That made a huge difference.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a second time, and I appreciate the moving examples he has cited. However, does he accept that similar examples could be offered of children who plead to be allowed to go to special schools?

Mr. Willis: I certainly agree that it is not an either/or proposition. People who say that it is are wrong. Each child must be considered as an individual: my premise is that no child should be denied access to mainstream education simply because of his or her special need or disability.
Thousands of examples of children such as Ricky, Carrie or Mark could be cited, but I contend that the real advantage of inclusive education is felt not by the child with a disability, but by the rest of the community. That important principle needs to be understood. We live in a world that is embarrassed by physical, sensory or


cognitive impairment. People who are different are perceived as a threat, but I assure the House that that does not happen when children grow up together in school communities. Ensuring that children grow up together in that way will help to overcome a great many barriers.
On 1 March, Lord Baker said in the House of Lords that never in his 30 years as a Member of Parliament had parents of a child with a disability or with special needs come to him and asked that their child be allowed to go to a mainstream school. I found that a really sad comment, because parents come to me with exactly that request all the time. The real crisis in my constituency, and with the local authority with which I worked, is that so many parents want their children to be normal and to enjoy the same opportunities as other children. I am saddened that we cannot give them that chance.
The hon. Member for Kingswood was right when he mentioned all the organisations that have written to us. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has not received the same series of letters—perhaps they have not been sent to Gloucestershire.

Dr. Evan Harris: I wonder why.

Mr. Willis: So do I, but I am pretty sure that all the disability and special educational needs organisations are not conspiring against Gloucestershire. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury will receive the letters.
All the organisations want the Bill to go forward, but a number of matters need to be addressed. We touched on the question of resources earlier. We can use all the fine words and say all the nice things that we like, but they will come to nought without the resources to back them up. As the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) pointed out, the Secretary of State's response to me was totally inconclusive: the Bill is litter with resource implications, but he did not say where the extra resources would come from.
Plans cannot be made for access programmes in every school in a local authority area without incurring a bill of significant size. I accept that £222 million over three years is being made available for access, but that will just scratch the surface. That total, divided by all the schools in England and Wales, comes to about £10,000 a school over three years. The research by the NUT and Scope entitled "Within Reach" said that £625 million was needed to meet access needs in schools.
No mention has yet been made of the fact that the Bill also covers further and higher education. In the further education sector, £172 million has been allocated for access, but the small print makes it clear that colleges can get that money only if they find match funding. So £172 million will have to be taken out of further education budgets that are incredibly tight already in order to access the £172 million from the Government. That is not acceptable, given that the Bill is a piece of primary legislation that requires colleges to act.
The next problem has to do with revenue funding. The Secretary of State has made vague commitments—and he was vague again today—about money coming from the standards fund. Other hon. Members may know differently, but my experience is than, every school that I visit is using its standards fund money to the hilt. There

is no spare money sloshing around in that fund at the moment, which means that something would have to be cut to provide the necessary extra resources. I hope that the Minister, when she responds, will not say that the £25 million announced today is sufficient to meet all the requirements: it is not.
Two major elements of expenditure are involved in ensuring access to the curriculum. The first is staff training: inclusive education means that every member of staff in a school has to be trained. There is nothing in the Government's proposals to say that that is a requirement or need, or that what goes on in teacher training establishments will be changed. However, if inclusive education is to be the norm, the question of staff training must be dealt with.
The second element of expenditure arises out of ensuring access to the curriculum. It is no good if children can access buildings but not the curriculum. The Secretary of State rightly mentioned the impact of information and communication technology. The effect will be profound, as children with sensory, physical and sight impairments will be able to use equipment and machinery. However, it is enormously expensive to put loops into every classroom, to invest in ICT that is supportive of youngsters with disabilities, to acquire adapted technology, and to establish the necessary support in the school infrastructure. The Government must come clean and say where the extra resources will come from.
My final point on the question of resources has to do with statements. All hon. Members in the House today—and, I presume, over the past 10 years—will be used to parents saying at surgery meetings that what is contained in the statements that they have received is not being delivered. To be fair to the Secretary of State, he has made a clear statement today about responding to criticisms of the code of practice, and we must praise him for that. However, it has been noted already that there has been a 27 per cent. increase in the number of statements issued since 1994. We have been told that resourcing for that is not guaranteed, but statements make no particular difference if they are not supported by the necessary resources. Again, I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond to that point in due course.
I shall conclude by dealing with special schools. One myth is that those of us who fervently support the inclusive agenda are somehow against special schools. and that the proposition is therefore either/or. Another myth is that special schools are closing by the day, that soon none will be left and that no one will be able to make a choice in the matter. In that regard, Gloucestershire is clearly different from the rest of the United Kingdom, but I must take the word of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury on that point.
I mentioned earlier that the number of youngsters going to special schools has been virtually unchanged for the past 10 years. The reality is that it is unlikely to change in the next 10 years as well. We will still need significant special school education provision for many of our youngsters. However, the disabilities and needs of children in special schools are becoming ever greater because the inclusive agenda ensures that youngsters who can move into mainstream education are doing so. We must therefore look at special schools in a different way.
We must re-examine the role of special schools in our school communities and education services. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who is no


longer in his place, touched on this. I see special schools not simply as centres of excellence but as research and development establishments for good practice that can be spread across the entire education service. Special schools need to be linked, in research terms, to universities to make sure that we are always at the leading edge of education provision, in terms not simply of teaching aids but of teaching methodology elsewhere
This is an interesting and worthwhile Bill. I earnestly hope that the hon. Member for Maidenhead, who has, like the grand old Duke of York, marched her troops to the top of the hill, will decide to take them back down again and support the Bill's Second Reading.

Mr. Desmond Browne: For the reasons so well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), I support this very good piece of legislation.
I am sure that this debate will attract many expert and informed contributions, such as the one we have just heard from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Unlike many of the other hon. Members who may seek to catch your eye in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have no such experience on which to draw. I have no significant background in the issues with which the Bill deals. However, when I practised law, I was regularly in front of the sheriff court representing families whose children should have had records of needs—or statements, as they are known in England. I also represented families whose children had records of needs but whose local education authority could not provide the resources necessary to fulfil the demands that those records of needs entailed. I always felt that that was a distinctly inappropriate way in which to deal with matters relating to education.
The second half of the Bill applies to Scotland and if it improves the situation there in any way, it will have served a significant purpose. I will come back in a few moments to the role that the sheriff court plays in education in Scotland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has given way to me on that vital point. So many education authorities did not make statements because they did not have the necessary finance. Will the hon. Gentleman join Opposition Members in pressing the Government to provide the extra resources that will be needed to make the Bill what we want it to be?

Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Resources are, of course, the key to delivering the Bill's objectives. I am speaking post evolution, at a time when the responsibility for providing such resources in Scotland lies with the Scottish Executive, which is answerable to the Scottish Parliament. Already more resources are being made available for education in Scotland. The delivery of those resources in some respects increases the distinctiveness of Scotland's system of education from that in England and Wales.
I am satisfied that the Government will deliver the resources that are necessary to achieve the objectives of this legislation in Scotland. My local authority is already doing a significant amount in that respect.
As I said, I am a relative newcomer to these issues, and I am very grateful to the Royal National Institute for the Blind, Scotland and to Children in Scotland for helping me to understand some of these provisions and to work my way through the implications for Scotland. I could have doubled the list cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood of organisations supporting the legislation, wishing it a fair wind and wishing to see it enacted very soon, simply by adding the word "Scotland" to the name of every organisation that he mentioned. I was tempted to make an intervention at the time, but I thought that the point would probably be better made in my speech.
The Under-Secretary responsible for disabled people and disability rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who is unfortunately no longer in the Chamber to hear this, met with those organisations, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and myself on 27 February to discuss some of the Bill's implications for Scotland. It was a very constructive meeting. On behalf of us all, may I say how grateful we are to tire Minister and the civil servants in her Department? It is comparatively unusual, these days, for a Scottish Member of Parliament to have such meetings with civil servants in that Department. The civil servants were extremely helpful and their understanding of the differences in relation to Scotland was encouraging. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary undertook to write to the relevant Minister in the Scottish Executive, and she has done so. I am sure that progress will be made. I hope that my hon. Friend's fellow Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), will forgive me if I go on to raise some of the issues that we discussed, because it is important that they are put on the record.
I say that this is a good piece of legislation for the same reasons as all other right hon. and hon. Members. It will advance significantly the educational opportunities of pupils and students is with disabilities and special educational needs. I support wholeheartedly the principle of inclusive education. From the experience of my constituents, inclusive education, when properly provided, adds to the lives of our children, improves educational standards and benefits child and parent alike. I agree with the hon. Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough that, through it, children come to value difference and treat their colleagues with the respect they deserve. My own children have learned from the experience
Although inclusive education presents teachers with a professional challenge, they, too, learn from experience. They are able to translate positive skills for the benefit of all young people in their care. As I see it, this is a win, win situation.
An integrated inclusive approach to education is of paramount importance in a modern education service. I recognise that there are many benefits to individual students with special needs in East Ayrshire schools who are included in local educational provision—a practice that is positively promoted and supported in the council's education and social services department. For example, a blind pupil who attended a Kilmarnock school has gone on to Strathclyde university. The most important aspect of that man's experience of school was that his accomplishment as a musician was encouraged through performance in school shows and the annual East Ayrshire showcase. That involvement would have been denied him had he not been included in mainstream education.
One deaf young person had a distinguished academic career in a Kilmarnock school before going on to Glasgow university. Even before leaving school, he was an articulate advocate for the deaf community, engaging regularly in advanced debates with council officers about service provision for people with disabilities. He became a leading figure in his school community
A number of autistic spectrum children are totally integrated within the mainstream school setting in my constituency. Another fine example is the facility for children of secondary school age that has been established at Grange academy for about 20 years now. Young people with hearing impairments are supported in a purpose-built base, but their main learning takes place in classrooms beside, and on the same basis as, children of the same age. In that way, the pupils become fully integrated into the life of the school and its wider community; they are able to participate in the same range of artistic, sporting and cultural activities enjoyed by that it peer group. They are able to gain exactly the same range and nature of qualifications as other young people. That important point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood.
More important, the Grange hearing-impaired pupils have learned to relate to their classmates on an equal footing. In turn, their peers accept them as equals, learning about their culture and sign language, and befriending them on an equal basis.
My final example relates to a young student in an East Ayrshire secondary school who has a most complex package of educational, social work and learning support. but who has been successfully integrated into the school. Furthermore, because the education department was the sole pilot authority for the education maintenance allowance scheme in Scotland, many young people—some with exceptional needs—have been helped and supported in the community with a financial bonus to stay in education.
My contribution to the debate will focus on the Scottish dimensions of the Bill. Its passage through another place has been especially interesting to me as a Scottish Member. This is the first occasion, post-devolution, that Parliament has considered equal opportunities legislation that has an impact on a devolved matter—education. Although serious efforts have been made by the DFEE to take account of the differences in the Scottish education system, some questions remain—perhaps inevitably. It is those questions that I want to address. I will argue that, in order to ensure clarity in implementation, a separate Scottish code of practice should he drafted by the Scottish Disability Rights Commission to accompany the legislation in Scotland.
Members will be well aware that Scotland has a distinct system of education—I am sure that many of my predecessors from Scotland will have told the House that often enough. Of particular relevance to today's debate are the differences relating to special educational needs. For example, unlike England and Wales, Scotland does not have a special educational needs tribunal system, nor do we have statementing. Moreover, the Scottish equivalent to statementing—the record of needs—is soon likely to be abolished, or at least substantially reviewed. Those expected reforms come in response both to withering criticism of the record of needs procedure from every quarter of the Scottish education scene, and to this

year's highly critical final report of the Scottish Parliament's Education, Culture and Sport Committee into special education needs.
I highlight those differences because the provisions of the Bill that proved most controversial in Scotland appear to be predicated precisely on statementing and SEN tribunal arrangements that pertain only to England and Wales. The two most controversial provisions are the lack of a right to financial recompense for disabled schoolchildren who have experienced discrimination, and the exemption from the duty of reasonable adjustment of auxiliary aids and services and of physical features. I shall briefly deal with each of those provisions.
On the thorny question of financial recompense, I preface my comments by saying that I share the Secretary of State's emphasis on the prime importance of educational remedies in cases of disability discrimination. The problem arises in the minority of cases where no educational remedy is available. In that connection. I received a briefing from a Scottish disability charity which asks:
If a final year disabled pupil fails a GCSE or Standard Grade because they had not been given access to a field trip or had missed out on essential handouts and course books in accessible formats, what remedy would there be? What action by the school could put that right?
The Scottish dimension to that matter is that as there is no SEN tribunal structure in Scotland, cases under this measure will be heard in the sheriff court. Indeed, that same sheriff court could—under this measure—offer financial recompense to a 16-year-old disabled Scot at college, but not to a 16-year-old disabled Scot at school. More generally, it seems odd that a disabled school pupil can receive financial recompense from a shopkeeper, but not from his or her education authority when no educational remedy is possible.
Although the sectors in England and Wales may be somewhat divided in their view of financial recompense in cases where an education remedy is not available, the Scottish sector is united. Indeed, it is as united on that matter as it is on its wish to see the Bill enacted. Joint amendments on the issue were drafted for another place by RNIB Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland and the Children in Scotland consortium. Although I am not supporting any amendments at this stage in the Bill's passage, the issue may have to be revisited at a future date.
The second controversial provision in the Bill, from my perspective, is the exclusion from the reasonable adjustment duty both of auxiliary aids and services and of physical access to schools. Again, there is a Scottish dimension: the record of needs system, which should provide the necessary support for disabled pupils, patently does not work. Indeed, in a submission to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, the Forum on Scottish Education stated:
The Record of Needs procedure has been corrupted to the point where its future must be considered. On the one hand, teachers have encouraged the opening of records in order to gain additional resources; on the other hand, education authorities have resisted the opening of them because of fears over the cost implications.
That criticism is all the more devastating when the membership of the forum is reviewed; it comprises all the key players—from the General Teaching Council for Scotland and the Scottish School Boards Association to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the


Scottish TUC. Statementing may be an appropriate basis on which to provide for the needs of disabled pupils in England and Wales, but the record of needs procedure certainly does not currently fulfil that role in Scotland.
I am mindful of the time, so I shall deal quickly with the physical accessibility of schools in rural areas of Scotland. Although it may be possible to invest in the accessibility of schools serving disabled pupils from a wider catchment area in towns and cities, that is not easily achievable in rural Scotland, where the nearest school may be more than 100 miles away.
My final point is on the case for a separate Scottish code of practice. Scottish education is distinct—it always has been; post-devolution, it is diverging even more from the system in England and Wales. There is thus a strong lobby in Scotland for a separate Scottish code of practice, drafted by the Scottish Disability Rights Commission. That will avoid something that we have had to put up with for years: Anglocentric legislation with references to Scotland in footnotes and between brackets.
The Bill should be viewed alongside recent measures that significantly enhance the effectiveness of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, such as the creation of the Disability Rights Commission. The failure of the Conservative Government to extend the DDA to education has long been highlighted by disability campaigners as a major weakness of that legislation. The Bill addresses that weakness, and it does so for Scotland; the Secretary of State and the Government should rightly feel proud of that.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), I am neither an education expert nor an expert in special educational needs—I apologise for that. I have four brief points on the Bill.
A cross-party consensus, in which I share, has already been expressed. It was referred to by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). There is cross-party consensus on the desirability of mainstreaming pupils with disabilities wherever possible. As noted by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, that was the thrust of section 316 of the Conservative Government's Education Act 1996. Furthermore, our agreement reflects an international consensus—the UNESCO Salamanca statement in 1994 was in favour of inclusive education.
The first of the four points that I want to make is that there is this consensus among the well-meaning. Among hon. Members, including myself, the basic philosophy is that, wherever possible, children should be fitted psychologically and educationally for life in normal society, and alongside that consensus we have the necessary set of buzzwords—if I may dare call them that—"integration" and "inclusiveness". Who could possibly be in favour of disintegration and exclusiveness?
My second point is that the history of social policy tells us that well-meaning intentions often give rise to unexpected and, indeed, perverse consequences. It is now generally accepted that the classic case of that was the Seebohm report and its consequences on provision for the

mentally ill. Even in the relatively limited and more recent field of special educational needs provision that rule can be seen to work.
Last year, the Centre for Policy Studies published a pamphlet, by Dr. John Marks, on special educational needs. It showed how the numbers involved have increased well Ahead of the expectations when the legislation was introduced and suggested some reasons for that, not all of which I agree with. Let me put the figures on the record. Since 1991, the number of pupils with special educational needs, but without statements—the English nomenclature—have increased from 11.6 to 19.2 per cent. of those in primary school, and from 9.6 to 16.5 per cent. of those in secondary schools. The numbers of pupils with special educational needs has increased from 0.8 to 1.6 per cent. of those in primary schools, and from 1 to 2.5 per cent. of those in secondary schools.
Dr. Marks speculates that one reason for that growth may be the coincidence of the introduction of the special educational needs policy with that of national performance tables for schools, which gives incentives to schools, he argues, to protect themselves from complaints about low performance by increasing SEN numbers. That is one explanation Another, perhaps more plausible, explanation, which will ring a bell with all of us who have had the experience in our surgeries that has been mentioned several times, is that parents may believe that they have an interest in getting their children statemented—recognised as having special educational needs—so as to attract additional support and funding to their children. So I come to my third point.
One of the reasons; why good intentions in social policy so often miss their mark is that insufficient regard is paid to the economic incentives that changes in policy bring into play. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has always spoken strongly on that point, and I agree with him about it. Let me illustrate that with some rough figures. A statemented child in Oxfordshire is likely to receive on top of the provision for ordinary children about 10 to 20 hours a week of "learning support assistance", which will add roughly 50 per cent. to the normal unit costs for an ordinary child. That has at least two economic consequences.
First, as I have said, parents become very interested in the extra provision in our generally under-financed state education system. So there are the strong pressures, with which all hon. Members are familiar from their surgeries, from parents on LE As and schools for more and better statements. Incidentally, the procedural reforms in the Bill, which I support, represent an attempt to address those pressures, but the Bill will do nothing about the underlying economic forces that drive the process.
The second economic consequence is that the LEAs and ultimately the Treasury—we must never forget the power of the Treasury, which hovers like a shadow over all our proceedings—are undoubtedly increasingly concerned about the rising cost. That brings me to my fourth and last point
The concern about the mounting costs of special educational needs provision threatens the range and quality of special reeds education. That is the point referred to in the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. Again let us consider some figures. Oxfordshire's special schools use a


banding system. A child in band 3, with moderate learning difficulties, attracts current funding of about £3,000 a year. A child in band 7, with profound and multiple learning difficulties, attracts about £7,000 of current spending a year. Relative to the cost of the current provision for an ordinary child, those are high figures—multiples ranging from two to six are involved. And of course the figures are also high in relation to the cost of provision in mainstream education for special needs children, with or without statements.
Cynicism would not be an appropriate note to strike in a debate of this kind, where we are all being high-minded, but I wonder whether we could not speculate a little on whether the growing consensus, among us well-meaning people, in favour of mainstreaming might have something to do with the economic incentives to reduce the unit costs of the growing demands for special educational needs provision.
I strongly support the aspiration—which has been expressed on both sides of the House, including by the Secretary of State—in favour of maintaining a range of high-quality special schools alongside the important trend of mainstreaming children with special educational needs. However, I agree with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that that aspiration may need to be more fully articulated in Committee. I need not reiterate the arguments for special schools alongside those for mainstreaming, but I am concerned about the underlying trends that I have described.
Again, let me propose a simple economic equation. The more special educational needs children are mainstreamed, the fewer will be available to attend special schools, so the unit costs of provision in those schools will be higher. Some of us have already picked up the dialogue and know that arguments of the following kind will be articulated. Some may say, "Of course these kids' needs are very serious, but surely it isn't fair that they should get such a large share of the cake." Some may say, "Any way, inclusion and integeration are best for the children." The bottom line is that others may say, "The truth is some parents are too pushy."
The Bill is a well-meaning measure, but I do not believe that some of the important facts of life in special education are fully recognised in it. To that extent, it will not improve the situation as much as we all hope it will. That is a matter of regret. The problems are real; our aspirations are for the best, but, as the poet said:
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow.

Laura Moffatt: It gives me enormous pleasure to support the Bill, which will do so much for children who require special education and their parents. May I say from the outset that I vehemently support neither mainstream nor special schooling; they both have a serious place in the education system. However, I would fight to the death for parents' ability to choose the sort of education that they want for their children. That is precisely what the Bill will do; it will facilitate education and give parents a more equal footing on which to fight for their children's needs, so that they can get exactly what they believe their children should have.
Much has been said in this debate about the loss of special schools. I have to tell the House that Crawley is losing two special schools, but we are going to have one beautiful, new special school, costing more than £6 million. It will be sited close to our mainstream schools to allow integration between schools and to ensure that all services are properly integrated.
I am here also to convey very grateful thanks from all the parents in Crawley. We are still reeling from a recent announcement that there will be £60 million pounds of investment in secondary schools. We cannot believe that that has happened after decades of neglect in Crawley new town. The schools in which I was educated are still using the same equipment, and they can hardly believe that they will receive the investment that they wanted so much from the Government. I wish to highlight that fact, because parents are delighted and want me to thank the ministerial team for making it happen. 
Let me make a few comments about new build. Most of us would assume that access for pupils with mobility problems is a given in new buildings. Sadly, that is not true. Many of us have seen examples of new buildings and we cannot quite believe that they do not offer accessibility to pupils who do not have full mobility. Those pupils cannot get into the buildings to use their facilities with their fellow pupils. It is important to focus on that issue. The Bill will ensure that not only do we focus on the needs of individual pupils, but that every new building in the education system is accessible to everyone.
There are many ways to do that, and Crawley gives us an example of good practice. The town access group, known as the TAG team, is at the heart of the planning process in the education system and throughout the town. It consists of people with varying disabilities—some are wheelchair users, some are not sighted and some are deaf—but for all sorts of reasons they have become mobilised to ensure that everyone has access to buildings. The group will be very much involved when the planning process for new schools comes to fruition. It will be shown the plans and encouraged to take an interest in what is going on, so that we avoid the disaster of building a beautiful new school only to find that pupils who wish to go there cannot make their way around it safely and easily. What a message that sends out to young people with disabilities.
Such young people should have access to new buildings without first having to make special arrangements, so that they can take advantage of the new facilities. I hope that the Bill will put that issue at the fore as it proceeds through the House. The party has not finished in Crawley; people are delighted and are looking forward to the time when the schools are up and running.
The other issue that I wish to raise relates to something that most of us would consider to be a hidden disability. It is rarely discussed in school circles, because it is a difficult subject. I am a member of the all-party group on AIDS. Although the number is thankfully still relatively small, a growing number of children have HIV and even more suffer from the hepatitis B infection. Those children want to play a part in mainstream schooling, but their small numbers sometimes mean that it is difficult for them to obtain the education and care that they rightly deserve. That is especially the case for children with HIV who become ill. I hope that the Bill will take account of their needs. As I said, the number of such children is growing and they should be recognised in the Bill.
I hope that the House will give the Bill the fair wind that it deserves, because it will help all parents. We know that inclusivity benefits us all and allows us to flourish as a civilised and healthy nation. I hope that the Bill has a smooth passage, so that we can hold up our heads knowing that we have done the right thing for children with disabilities in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Today has been quite an experience, because I welcomed 50 people to the Jubilee Room from the Alderman Knight school in my constituency. The school feels very much under threat because of the policies pursued by Gloucestershire county council and an unholy alliance of Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors.
The county council has already proposed the closure of Bownham Park school in Stroud and I have written to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to ask him what judgment he will make on that proposal. People in Gloucestershire are certainly not persuaded that the school should close, and his decision will give us an indication as to his views on special schools.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in the future of the special schools in his constituency, but does he accept the point, which I have made to him previously, that the final decision is not for the Secretary of State, but for the local school organisation committee? If it is not unanimous, it will then be a matter for an independent adjudicator.

Mr. Robertson: Yes, I accept that, but the school organisation committee has failed to be unanimous, so it will be left to an adjudicator to make the decision. Therefore I do not accept that the decision is entirely out of the Secretary of State's hands. [Interruption.] Well, we shall see what happens. Certainly, Gloucestershire county council was sparked into action by the Government's Green Paper and is proposing to close the special schools.
If the Bill is accepted in its present form, it will be a triumph of theory over practice. When the people from the school visited the House of Commons, almost the entire Conservative Front-Bench team came to listen to their views. Although Ministers were asked many weeks ago to attend and were reminded this week, not one member of the Government team could find even a couple of minutes to call in. Perhaps that reflects their views on special schools. Ministers are shaking their heads, but I do not know why. The invitations were sent out many weeks ago and they were reminded again this week.
A young boy called Brian Beard has not been educated in any school since September, because the local education authority will not recognise his parents' wish for him to be educated in a special school. He was present today, as was another girl. She was in tears as she described how she simply could not cope in a mainstream school. Eventually, she was placed in a special school and she has developed considerably since she has been there.
For many children for whom inclusion has taken place, it is the correct policy. However, it is important to recognise the needs of individual children and they and

their parents must decide the best place for their education. The Bill will not give parents that ability. It states that if there is no statement, the child will have to be educated in a mainstream school. The problem, however, is that local authorities are not efficient in their statementing.

Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend the Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that local education authorities have to take account of parents' wishes for their child to be educated in a special school. Nothing in the Bill will change that. If that does not happen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, it is up to him to make sure that it does.

Mr. Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me how to do that without bringing it to the attention of the Secretary of State and Ministers. It is my job as a Member of Parliament to raise issues with them. That is what I am doing and what I have done many times before. Only a few hours ago, I got the permission of the young boy's parents to One Ministers his name and address if they want it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has good intentions, but the boy has not been educated since September.

Miss Begg: I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's statement. He describes the situation as it pertains today. Nothing in the Bill will make that the norm. If anything, the Bill will help to ensure that children are appropriately educated, according to the wishes of their parents. He should welcome it.

Mr. Robertson: My reading of the Bill is different. I can only base my comments on the experience in Gloucestershire since the Green Paper was published. The other parties in the council have got together to drive through a programme of closure of special schools. That is the reality. We can talk in this place all we want, but that is what is happening on the ground. I am paid as a Gloucestershire Member of Parliament to bring that to the attention of Ministers and I hope that they will respond.
Many hon. Members—in particular Labour Members—have claimed that children are being denied access to mainstream schools because of their special educational needs. I fully recogonise that that might happen. However, no parent has written to me about that problem. Instead, many parents, inducing those who were here today, have complained that they cannot get places in the special schools that they believe their children deserve.
Heads, teachers, governors and pupils at mainstream schools are concerned about the inclusion policy. They know that if children struggle in mainstream schools, other pupils will suffer as a result. They are not being selfish, and neither are the parents. They merely recognise the reality that children need to go to an appropriate school. As one or two Labour Members stated, that has to happen by considering the needs of individual
Let me tell the House—not for the first time—where I was educated. I was excluded, in the sense that I did not successfully negotiate the 11-plus examination all those years ago. I am neither proud nor ashamed of that and, if I could have my time over again, I would not change the secondary school that I attended. It was a good Church of England school, with a good ethos, and it was right for me. Whether it was the best school in the area is irrelevant.
The girl who spoke at the meeting earlier today was brought to tears when she said, "Nobody is listening to us." We are sat in this place and councillors are sat in Shire hall in Gloucestershire. We come out with fine theories, but no one listens to the parents and pupils who know that they are better off in special schools. The closure of those schools in Gloucestershire makes them wonder why they have elected representatives. The parents, teachers, governors and children in many schools throughout Gloucestershire are expressing a clear wish that is being ignored by hon. Members and members of Gloucestershire county council. No wonder those people are dubious about the role of politicians and have no faith in the democratic process.

Mr. Tom Levitt: Even if we were not having this Second Reading debate, there would he every reason to discuss and celebrate what the Government are doing for children with special needs and disabilities. They introduced the schools access initiative, which received £45 million in the first three years and will get £220 million in the next three. The grant that is available to disabled students who go into further and higher education has doubled. The new deal for disabled people has ensured that they get access to training and skills, which has been a tremendous success. Those measures and the Bill fit into a framework that includes the Disability Rights Commission, the disabled persons tax credit and much stronger disability discrimination legislation, which is better than the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that we inherited.
We have not heard much about the 1995 Act. Conservative Front-Bench spokesman have not given a feasible explanation as to why education was excluded from it. That omission gave the message to young disabled people they have the right to gain access to a pop concert, a pub for under-age drinking or a video shop, but they do not have the right to gain access to their schools. That is nonsense.
I appeal to the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) to withdraw their amendment. All three have been—and, in some cases, still are—active members of the all-party parliamentary disablement group. I cannot believe for one moment that they are happy to lead their troops through the Lobby to vote in favour of the amendment and against the Bill on Second Reading.

Mr. Boswell: Having expressed disbelief about our alleged attitudes on some matters, will the hon. Gentleman ponder on the fact that we might have reservations about the Bill? It does not seem odd to me to reflect that in an amendment.

Mr. Levitt: What seems odd to me is to vote for an amendment that, if successful, will defeat the whole Bill. Surely the hon. Gentleman should ensure that the Bill is agreed to on Second Reading so that he can take up his concerns in Committee. That is the logical response.

Dr. Ladyman: Is my hon. Friend as baffled as I am by the comments of Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen?

Has it occurred to him that they have not read the amendment and do not realise that it will prevent the Bill from making progress?

Mr. Levitt: At least two of us have told Conservative Members that. Perhaps there will be a change of heart before 10 o'clock.
There is little disagreement about the principle of inclusion. After all, we meet disabled people every day, we live in a mixed-ability world, and there is wide acknowledgment that it is a positive experience for non-disabled children to mix with disabled children. On the other hand, it is possible that in the past we paid lip service to special educational needs. Perhaps we allowed some special schools to become out of sight and out of mind. Perhaps units within our mainstream schools share a postcode but little else with the school to which they are attached. Perhaps—I speak as a former teacher—some teachers might be quite happy for the special needs department to get on and do the job, as long as they do not have to sully their hands.
I commend the report by Scope and the National Union of Teachers. "Within Reach 3" says that, in 90 per cent. of schools where access initiatives have been implemented and schools have become more inclusive by introducing into the mainstream disabled children and children with special needs, attitudes towards children with disability have improved. There is less bullying, less exclusion and more physical inclusion.
The Bill assumes that education will be inclusive rather than exclusive. It gives all parents the right to send their child to a mainstream school, but it also reserves their right to special education if that is best. I have sympathy with those people who defend the special schools cause for at least one good reason: I think that I am the only Member of Parliament who can use sign language to any extent. I am certainly the only Member of this House who is a trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, although Lord Ashley in the other place is another.
I was present in the Chamber a couple of years ago for an Adjournment debate in which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) sought to save a school in her constituency which was operated by a London borough and provided a sign language environment in which young deaf children could grow up. She asked the then Education Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), for permission for a trust to be set up to help the school to survive the policies of the distant LEA, which would have closed it, and to set itself up as an independent school. My hon. Friend gave that permission on the night, and I was pleased that we would retain an institution in which deaf children were educated in an environment where sign language was the norm. That is an example—perhaps an ironic one—of a listening Government.
Another example of our listening Government deserves mention. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to it briefly. I refer to the code of practice for statementing. My postbag, particularly in December and January, was full of letters from people complaining about proposals for that code. As a result, the Government withdrew the document that had been put out for consultation and allowed the existing code of practice to proceed. It will not necessarily remain unamended, but


the Government listened and said, "Perhaps we haven't got these proposals right. Let's go away and think about them again."
Turning once more to children with a hearing impairment. I want to place on the record the fact that only 14 per cent. of deaf pupils in mainstream schools achieve five or more A to C grades at GCSE, compared with 44 per cent. of hearing children. Some children with a sensory impairment have to travel 20 miles a day to have their special needs met, and many will have had to stay in a special unit or school when integration and development of lip reading and speech skills might have been better for them. That is a different group of children from the one to which I referred a moment ago. Where there are questions of language development, it is particularly important that we accommodate the children concerned.
Some 840 babies are born with a significant hearing impairment each year; 400 of them will have that impairment detected by the age of 18 months, but 200 will not have had it properly detected at the age of three and a half years. That leads us to question whether those children are receiving the right education, help and diagnosis from that early stage.

Mr. Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we can persuade this Government, or a future Government, to introduce universal neonatal hearing screening on a national basis as soon as possible, we could pick up those problems at an earlier stage? We would then both create a problem for ourselves and require that we answer it.

Mr. Levitt: I certainly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's desire to achieve that aim. Typically, the children to whom I referred are tested by the health visitor distraction test at seven or eight months, but the test is not infallible at that age. Certainly, I agree that we need improvement by one means or another.
That leads me to a situation that I have encountered in my constituency. In Derbyshire, four-year-olds have traditionally gone into primary schools early. We now have universal pre-school education for four-year-olds whose parents want it, and thanks to the Government's policies, we now offer it to three-year-olds. What happens to the two-year-old or three-year-old with special needs? There is a little confusion, to say the least, about who has the responsibility for finding the right help for those children.
I find that people who run pre-school schemes for three-year-olds in the voluntary and private sectors are very uncertain, and indeed scared, about the idea of a child with special needs wanting to enter their group. They call the social worker, but they are not sure whether the problem should be dealt with by social services or by the education or health services. They might have been running the group for only a couple of years, and their basic training will not be sufficient to diagnose special needs properly. Now that we have the opportunity to extend pre-school education to three-year-olds, we have the chance to improve the diagnosis of special needs. We can then address the thorny problem of statementing a child of that age.
I want the statementing process to be speeded up. I want to see "easy win" assessments being carried out within days of referral. The whole pre-school sector should be given the same support and opportunity to help children with special needs in their care.
Another constituency case, which hopefully will have been resolved today involves a girl at the other end of the age spectrum. At 16, she has been in a special school for children with multiple learning difficulties. Had she been born a year earlier the careers service would have led her into a full-time residential place in further education. Had she been born a year later, the Learning and Skills Council would have placed her in full-time residential education. This year, however, it appears that the careers service is pulling back from its former role and the Learning and Skills Council is not yet up and running. Parents have been left facing weeks and weeks of uncertainty about what is happening to their l6-year-olds with severe learning difficulties. Those children will go to a new school in September, but parents need a reliable framework to assist them in meeting their children's needs and in exercising the choice that we have all said we want the Bill to preserve. I am sure that it will do so.
There are excellent initiatives in special needs education. Many of us attended a fringe event at last year's Labour party conference where we were privileged to have conversations with young people with special needs. That might not sound unusual in itself, but they were young people with whom I could not previously have had a conversation. They were using the latest speech synthesis technology, which is very expensive. By using synthetic speech, those children, who have very little muscular control and no speech, were able to have bright, engaging and intelligent conversations. That was an example of how technology can come to the aid of children with severe communication difficulties. It was a tremendous evening children were liberated and I and others were educated
The Bill is a milestone. It finally recognises the needs and entitlements of children and adults to access appropriate education. Nothing more needs to be said about it and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I appreciate having the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Undoubtedly, children with all manner of special needs and disabilities are able to be integrated in mainstream education. I visited every school and college in my constituency. I went to see the work that Godalming sixth-form college is doing. At Badshot Lee and Broadwater, I saw the special units for children with various disabilities. Much can now be done in mainstream education and with new, technology, and I endorse the point that training and investment in information and communications technology is enormously important in enabling more children to release their potential. I remember our excitement in the Department of Health when cochlear implants were going to be made available on the NHS. Young people with all manner of physical disabilities can be released from the constraints under which they have lived, and lead full lives as active citizens.
It is not, however, my view that the mantra of social inclusion is necessarily always the right one in education for children with special needs. I say that having worked for many years—when I had a proper job before entering Parliament—in a child guidance unit, having been the chairman of a magistrates court, and having worked at some of the special residential schools that the then Inner London education authority set up amid great grandeur all over the home counties.
Many young people need special assessment and special provision, and coercive social inclusion is counter-productive. I do not dispute the degree to which having a fellow pupil with a disability reduces the fear, ignorance and stigma shown by the other, able-bodied members of the class, but I do dispute the idea that all children should be forced into this socially inclusive pattern.
I was interested in the comments made by Professor Peter Farrell, the professor of special needs and educational psychology at the university of Manchester. He said:
Social inclusion, as equal members of society, is something that most people would support. But this is not necessarily the same thing as educational inclusion. For very disabled kids"—
I do not like the word "kids"; it is patronising, but be that as it may—
with minimal communication skills and demanding physical needs, some degree of separation may be more appropriate—even a precondition for social integration.
Badshot Lee primary school has a wonderful facility for children with severe physical disabilities. A young man, Igor, to whom I am particularly attached, suffered grievously in the Chernobyl disaster. He lives in my area. He is very small because he lost a number of his limbs. Until the age of 11, he was comfortable at Badshot Lee. However, at 11, he wanted to go to a special school because he felt vulnerable and unusual, as adolescents do. Adolescents with severe physical disabilities may feel even more so. There is not one answer, but coercive social inclusion is wrong. Igor wanted to go to the Lord Mayor Treloar college, and had great difficulty achieving his objective.
I am particularly persuaded by Melanie Phillips, who recently warned of teachers being left
to flounder with pupils whose very disruptive behaviour still spells chaos in the classroom … for the majority of heads and teachers, the problems of incorporating severely disruptive children are overwhelming.
My special concern is with children with mental health problems. I am disappointed that they have had so little mention in this debate. That is extraordinary. I particularly applaud the work of Young Minds, led by Peter Wilson. He is having the greatest difficulty in securing funding. Despite all the talk of joined-up government—the words never match the reality with this Government—he cannot get adequate funding to provide the mental health services necessary for so many young people
Fearing that I was not going to catch your eye for a long time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I briefly visited, for sustenance and information, the launch of the manifesto card of the NSPCC, the Child Poverty Action Group—my first employer—and Barnardos. In the material that they have produced, they make it clear that one in five children and adolescents suffer from some form of mental health problem. One of their campaigns, which I applaud, is that

independent counselling schemes in all schools to provide emotional support for all children who need it
should be available. That is a tall order, but it is not my view that every child benefits from being forced to stay in the mainstream.
I wish that we had heard more from Ministers about what they are doing to co-operate with health providers, social services and the criminal justice system to ensure that those young people who often end up in the sheriff court—as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) said—and the juvenile court, as I would have called it, receive the help that they need when they need it. So often with the goal of social inclusion, problems are delayed until a child is really suffering and falling out of the system, and until the teachers and parents are desperate. The great idea that social inclusion is the objective and that special education is somehow a failure or a lesser option is, in my view, misguided and misjudged.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) had the right of it when she said that children's needs should be given priority. I am sceptical about the mantra of children's rights. Children have a right to be cared for and a right to be heard, but the concept of children's rights is not a wise one because so many children need control, care, support and containment. When hon. Members talk about the disability rights legislation applying the same language and understanding to children as to adults, they misunderstand the nature of childhood.
I strongly support the work done by my noble colleagues in another place, when they talked about the best interests of the child. I spent many years working on children's legislation, including the Children Act 1989, and I believe that to fail to give children the support and care they need is a great error. Children are not adults with adult status, and we fail them instead of serving them if we fail to understand that. 
It has been said by a number of my colleagues that there is a role for special schools. I support the comments made by Doug McAvoy, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers. Goodness, I remember him coming in long ago, when I worked for Chris Patten at the Department of Education. I did not feel, then, that I had many points of agreement with Mr. McAvoy, but I agree with him when he says:
There is a continuing role for special schools, not least as centres of expertise and as resource centres, as well as providing for each young person's special needs.
If hon. Members came to the Abbey school or the Ridgeway school in my constituency—one is for young people with mild learning disabilities, the other for those with severe learning disabilities—they would see how young people can gain status, have leadership roles and be celebrated at prize-givings and other events for their success and their status. Those opportunities are, with the best will in the world, hard to achieve in the mainstream.
I am also concerned about the role of residential provision. I return to the issue of co-operation over funding. I was deeply influenced by the late Lady Faithfull, who was for many years instrumental in the all-party parliamentary group on children, and also in the Caldecott community. The difficulty of securing funding for residential places continues to be as problematic today as ever.
I ask the Minister to comment on what steps are being taken to achieve co-operation between social service departments, health departments and education departments. It was ever thus that the children who need residential provision often have not only educational needs but social needs. Children with special educational needs come not with one label, but, increasingly, with multiple labels. There is a degree of buck-passing and cost-shunting between agencies in relation to who will fund the provision. There will be few hon. Members who have not had experience of parents desperate for their children to receive a place, but somehow the agencies could not resolve the problems until, all too often, the criminal justice system has to pick up the bill.
I am also worried about the degree to which residential provision, which probably used to be excessive, is under threat. The reasons for a placement are rarely purely educational; almost always social factors are behind it. When we read of the effect of having a severely handicapped child—marital breakdown and family pressure—it is scarcely surprising that social factors combine with educational needs.
I share the profound concerns, represented widely in my constituency, about the potentially adverse effects of the Bill on the independent sector. It is hard to explain, but there is a huge demand, certainly in my area, for placements in the independent sector. There are a number of not-for-profit denominational independent establishments in my constituency which have prestige and cachet. Parents who are coming to terms with their child's disability may believe that if the child can be placed in one of those independent establishments, the school will provide added value. I understand that parents can find valuable the additional contribution that the faith community often provides in those circumstances; I would feel that myself.
My worry is the degree to which the independent sector will be discriminated against in a needless and serious manner. In my area, St. Dominic's school and More house have both provided remarkable care, education and encouragement for many decades, and have given self-esteem to youngsters who were failing to thrive and flourish in the mainstream.
I very much hope that the Government will re-examine the matter and accept the view of the Opposition that choice for parents is important, especially when people are coming to terms with their children's difficulties. All parents want their children to overcome obstacles and be free from difficulty; having a choice can make a huge difference to their accepting the outcome. I hope that the Government will recognise in statute that the best interests of the child should have priority.
I hope that the Government will look again at joined-up government. I am sure that other hon. Members have received letters of anguish from advisory and support services for children and the family court on the Lord Chancellor's proposals for self-employed guardians ad litem. Guardians ad litem do much to ensure that children in the looked-after sector realise their potential and achieve all that they can, given their resources and their adverse circumstances. In the interests of joined-up government, I am sure that the Department will want to

talk to the Department of Health, social services, those dealing with criminal justice matters and the Lord Chancellor's Department.
I am sure that many hon. Members have read Lord Renton's comments in another place. He described his daughter, who has severe learning and physical disabilities, and said:
Having children with learning difficulties in mainstream schools causes serious problems. The first is that the children become more conscious of their mental handicap, which gives them an inferiority complex. Alas, sometimes they are bullied and often they are treated with casual contempt by normal pupils and even by teachers.
Lord Renton continued:
Integration into mainstream schools often means disruption and delays in the classroom detrimental to the normal pupils."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 February 2001; Vol. 622. c. 616–17.]
I hope for a more optimistic view of the vast majority of children with special educational needs. This country has made progress in the past two or three decades; one only has to go overseas and see the special educational provisions in many other countries to realise that the House is right to be proud of that progress. I hope that the Government will not get so carried away with their own rhetoric that they fail to understand that individual children, their assessment and best needs should be their guiding light.

Kali Mountford: Following the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), it comes as a surprise to realise that I agree with much of what she and many Opposition Members have said. My surprise is that we reach different conclusions from our shared experience and attitudes. Certainly the view that children ought to be the centre of policy should be shared by Members on both sides of the House. I am therefore surprised that Opposition Members conclude that the Bill should be opposed, while Labour Members conclude that, where change is needed, it should be sought and made.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to two constituency issues. The first is the review of special educational needs provision in my area in Kirklees education authority; the second is my personal interest in ADHD—attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—which is little understood and needs closer examination.
In my own area. about a year ago, the education authority felt, with good reason, that special educational needs provision needed to be reviewed and changed. Some schools in the neighbouring constituency of Huddersfield—my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) spoke earlier about local education—do not offer good provision. Some of their buildings are not the best; ideally, we would not children to be in them, as they are not comfortable. Some schools are far removed from communities and, for certain pupils, travel is difficult. Change in provision was therefore not necessarily a bad idea. However, to assume that the outcome of the Bill will he identical to the first paper read by members of the education authority is not necessarily the best thing to do. The fact that those LEA members based some of their consultation on the Education Act 1996, which dealt with another matter, also changed the focus of what could have been a good review into something that caused suspicion.
Some of that suspicion has been voiced in the House today and rests on the fact that, when we look at special educational needs, we are really talking about taking


places out of the current system and making a single overall change by saying that all children with needs should be included in mainstream education. However, there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that. I share the view of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey that children vary so much that we have to look at a range of provision. If, after long consultation, we do not do that in Kirklees, I would be extremely disappointed.
The Government have just announced a grant of more than £16 million towards the change in education provision in Kirklees, yet still the consultation goes on, as it must because parents also need to be listened to during the process of change which, after all, affects their children. The voices of children are rarely heard directly. We often listen to their parents, but perhaps we need to spend a little time listening to children when discussing inclusion. Children often tell me, "I do not want a statement. I do not want people to think of me as different. I do not want the people who I mix with in the youth club or football club to say that I am different and not in class with them."
Often, children themselves have a different view of what their statement should be about, especially as they get older and articulate their own needs. The Bill includes a great deal that will allow us to tell parents and children that everyone should be encompassed in the process of change. All of our views should be taken into account.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made some interesting points about resourcing, with which there are problems. Resourcing is not always just about money. I have encountered a big problem when looking at assessments of need—we do not have enough educational psychologists to do that work. They are in short supply not simply because we cannot afford them, but because they have not been trained and are unavailable. That obviously slows the process down. We should be examining such issues in detail, not putting up a straightforward barrier and saying that, as a matter of principle, we oppose the Bill. We should be working together to find solutions.
In Kirklees, we decided that there should be an all-party statement declaring that the issue was non-political, and that we would all work together to find out what was in the best interests of children. I pay tribute to the chair of the education authority, John Smithson, who is a Liberal Democrat councillor. I am not ashamed to congratulate him. When it was drawn to his attention that parents were uneasy about the change that the authority was making, he listened. Listening is at the heart of everything that has happened.
I went to see Ministers, and the Under—Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) who has just left the Chamber, met parents and explained carefully her view of what should be done for children who had been statemented and the range of provision that should be available. She made it clear to those parents that, for some children, inclusion in mainstream schooling is desirable, but that such inclusion is not necessarily desirable for all children. For some children, a temporary period in some form of provision may be a solution—perhaps a period of catching up, a period of adjustment or a period of being supported. For some children, a permanent statement of needs will be required. For some, a specific range of equipment or a style of teaching may be the solution.
Much has been said today about the ways in which we can deal with problems, but we have not heard much about styles of teaching. Some children, particularly those with mild learning difficulties, benefit a great deal from being taught in a slightly different way. I am thinking especially of children with dyslexia, who could stay in the mainstream, with the right support—possibly technical equipment such as a laptop in the classroom or, for very young children, learning to draw with a finger in sand. Such a solution gives them a multi-sensory experience that helps them to learn.
We need to consider a range of different ways in which children can be taught. Learning to write with a finger in sand is not the most expensive way in which education can be delivered, so money is not always the issue. We need to use our collective resources and our imagination to find out what is best for each child. I do not want a one-size-fits-all education system, and that is not proposed in the Bill.
A one-size-fits-all education system would certainly not help children who suffer from ADHD. The condition is hugely misunderstood and has a wide range of effects on children. It has a huge effect on almost all the families of those children. Some children with a mild form of ADHD present almost no problems at all. Parents are often told that the problem is simply bad parenting, and that if they took control, their children would be better behaved.
A multidisciplinary approach is needed. The children whom I have met with their parents display such a wide range of problems that labelling those children as hyperactive, naughty, disruptive, behaviourally poor or not paying attention in class does nothing for them, and does not recognise the stress and strains that the condition causes for families. We must find out how early we can identify needs. That applies to almost all special needs, but particularly to children with ADHD.
Sometimes a doctor identifies the problem. With MRI scanning, the effect on the brain can be identified quite early. However, I recently met a young man who is about to go into secondary education. He was diagnosed as suffering from ADHD and is being treated with ritalin, but has not had a statement of needs of any kind. Because he can reach a certain level of attainment in his classroom, the rest of his needs are being ignored. Teachers say that he is coping, but he can do better than coping.
Parents of such a child say that they struggle to pay for extra tuition in the evening, work hard with the child with his homework, and that the family is crumbling under the strain of trying to cope with the child educationally. None of that is taken into account under the current system. That must change. The Bill should not allow children to carry on coping, when they could be achieving. It should maximise the potential of everyone.
Those are views that I have heard from Opposition Members, so I am surprised that we cannot find some agreement and some way of co-operating to take the matter forward. No one claims that the Bill is the be-all and end-all—the end of the process of dealing with special educational needs. That would be a disappointment, because it should be a devolving process that includes everyone, not least the children and the parents. If we refuse to give the Bill a Second Reading because there are flaws in it, and because it does not go far enough, that sends out a strange message to my constituents, who have grave concerns about children who are still waiting for their statements.
Will we deny those children the resources that they need? We can argue quite properly about whether the resources are sufficient and whether they are being spent in the right way, but let us not argue that nothing should be done. That would be a bizarre response to the moving stories that we heard today about children's specific needs. I am thinking especially of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who is not in his place. I was moved to learn that children in Tewkesbury are suffering as he described, and that Gloucestershire council has not been able to respond to their needs. I hope that Kirklees council is listening carefully to the debate and learning from it.
When we go out and listen to parents, we will hear some who say that their children have had a good experience at school. Those parents will ask us to ensure that the special needs school is not closed, but adapted and made more useful. Can we find a better way for pupils in such a school to link with mainstream education? Perhaps we can create a better path through education. The school that I have in mind is Lydgate school, which has good links with both primary and secondary schools and with further education. We could do even more. That school could serve as a model for special needs education and links with mainstream education and with the community.
The solution does not have to be the closure of existing schools and the building of new ones. One solution might be to adapt existing schools. Less successful schools that cannot deliver the sort of education that we want may have to be replaced with new schools. I hope that both solutions will be available in Kirklees, and that we will listen to both sets of parents—those who say that we need a new school and those who want to keep the schools that we have. It is possible to compromise and find solutions to suit everybody. Councillor Smithson has taken that approach, and I commend him for it. I commend also the parents who have fought so hard to keep the education that is appropriate for their children.
The Bill is about finding the appropriate response to the needs of children and parents. It should not be about a cash reduction in spending, which is what some people think that we mean when we speak about reducing places. It is mischievous and misguided to lead people into believing that that is what the Bill is about or to suggest that it ensures that no children will have their special educational needs met in a specialist sector. The multidisciplinary approach that I believe to be necessary for children such as those with ADHD requires links with the health authority, social services and housing providers, as well as with education.
For children with ADHD in my constituency, I want to give credit to the National Children's Centre, which is located in Huddersfield, to Huddersfield university and to doctors at St. Luke's hospital. They have all been working with the council to produce an integrated approach for the needs of children with ADHD. I agree with Opposition Members that people do not have special needs only while they are in school, at home or out in the community. People's special needs encompass their whole lives, which is why an integrated, all-encompassing approach seems the right one to adopt. I believe that the Bill sets us well along the way to achieving that target.

Mr. Michael Jack: I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) on a contribution that was obviously well informed. Clearly, she takes a keen personal interest in the matter. For my part, I should like to declare an interest, as I am married to a teacher who teaches children with severe learning difficulties. Whenever I am at home, the joy, achievement and frustrations of the Pear Tree school at Kirkham, about which I shall say more in a moment, fill our house. On Sunday, we had the pleasure of looking after one of the school's pupils who came home after a school concert in the outskirts of Preston which was attended by teachers. It was a joy to see what the school had done for that young man.
Labour Members have made many critical remarks about the amendment. The title of the Bill states that it is intended
to make further provision against discrimination, on grounds of disability, in schools and other educational establishments; and for connected purposes.
I have not heard my hon. Friends say anything to make me believe that we do not support the principal purpose of the Bill. In another place, Baroness Blackstone said:
All children have a right to an appropriate education that affords them the opportunity to achieve their personal potential.
She went on to say that
where parents want more specialist provision, their wishes should be listened to."—[0ffical Report, House of Lords, 19 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 635.]
Those words seem entirely compatible with our amendment, which states that we want the Bill to contain provision to:
explicitly give priorit3 to the special educational needs of the child".
Nobody disagrees with this aim or has suggested that it should not be our principal objective. However, as the amendment points out, the Bill
contains no mechanism for safeguarding a viable choice for parents between types of school 
The reason that Opposition Members have criticised the Bill was reflected in the comments of hon. Members who pointed out that the philosophy that underpins the changes in special education such as the move towards a more inclusive regime, has caused much concern and worry among people with good experience of special schools. The hon. Member for Colne Valley spoke about the review that is being conducted by her local authority. A similar review is occurring in Lancashire, where there is considerable anxiety about the threat that it carries with it. I believe that one London authority has already eliminated all its special schools—

Mr. Boswell: Newham.

Mr. Jack: People have seen what can happen. There may be good reasons for what happened in Newham, and I do not want to debate that specific case, but people are worried.

Mr. Berry: What does the right hon. Gentleman believe would be achieved if the amendment were agreed to and the House declined to give the Bill a Second Reading? What would happen next?

Mr. Jack: If the Bill were not given a Second Reading, we would be the Government. We would not have introduced a Bill containing such treasures in the first place. The hon. Gentleman has a selective memory. I seem to remember that the previous, Labour Opposition often tabled amendments to good Bills. That is the only mechanism that Her Majesty's Opposition can use to register a point of principle about a Bill. He shakes his head. I am sorry if my comments are inconvenient to his argument, but I reiterate that we are simply registering a point of principled disagreement about an aspect of the Bill and are not objecting to Second Reading itself.

Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend may recall that we also tabled a reasoned amendment on Second Reading of the Learning and Skills Bill—the Act of 2000—which was also introduced in the other place. Although I make no presumption as to our actions after this evening, I remind the House that we did not vote against that Bill on Third Reading: we abstained. We had reservations, we expressed those reservations and, to some extent, they were met.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. To conclude my remarks to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), were we lucky enough to win the vote and were the Government to remain as committed to the Bill as they say they are, they would reintroduce it in a modified form that we could all support. No doubt the thesis behind our amendment will be discussed in Committee, but to try to label us as being against making further progress is wrong. [Interuption.] The hon. Member for Kingswood should not laugh at us, because some of us speak with passion and a degree of understanding of the subject, just as he did. We want to protect both the interests of the children and some remarkable educational establishments.
I put on record my appreciation of all teachers, particularly those in special schools. They not only deal with the nice side—the happy, smiling children at the Christmas concert—but clean up after an incontinent child, administer the valium when a child has a fit, and deal with the child who may have a violent outburst through no fault of his own. Such teachers are dedicated and sometimes their role can easily be forgotten as we take a broad-brush approach to these matters.
Teachers are ably assisted by many others from the health services. Certain provisions will create a need for more assistance from a further army of occupational therapists, speech therapists, physiotherapists and educational psychologists. All are in short supply, but that point was not dealt with by the Secretary of State.
May I take the House on a brief trip to Pear Tree school? I want to paint a picture by using not my words, but those in a recent Ofsted inspection report. Pear Tree is an all-age community school with 61 pupils on the roll, and Ofsted observed:
Pupils love coming to school. A high proportion of lessons are simply inspirational".
How often does Ofsted describe a school as inspirational? The word "excellent" is used 18 times in the report, and only one lesson out of 72 observed was anything other than satisfactory. That is a tremendous testament to Mrs. Jean Cook, the head teacher, and her staff, in terms of what the school can achieve.
Parents speak about the school in remarkably glowing terms and Ofsted said that the leadership and management are excellent, that the teaching
is often excellent and very good overall",
and that inclusion for pupils is very good. The school is complimented on its efforts to ensure that a
growing number of pupils are successfully engaged in integration activities in primary schools and opportunities for pupils from other schools to work alongside Pear Tree pupils in their own school are regularly and successfully made.
That is what a centre of real excellence in the world of special education can deliver, but hon. Members should consider how Lancashire's review of special educational needs is being conducted. The council
intends to maintain a vibrant special school sector within its overall policy of inclusion.
In the world of special schools, however, a growing paralysis is setting in. People are uncertain as to what will happen. The review has been inspired by the consultative exercise and, indeed, by the Bill. There is a great need to try to remove some of that uncertainty.
There may be an argument for special schools in Lancashire to be re-examined, but I am worried by the apparent assumption that more and more pupils will move to the mainstream, to the extent that many special schools such as Pear Tree might not be viable and there will be no choice for parents when they have to make up their minds about what is best for their children. When parents show their passionate support for Pear Tree school, as adjudged by their comments to Ofsted, they are speaking on behalf of the consumers of education—sadly, some of their children cannot articulate their feelings themselves. Those parents know the tremendous contribution that Pear Tree can make.
What worries me about the Bill is the provision on guidance to parents to enable them to make up their minds about what is right for their child. Will the Minister comment more specifically on clause 2, which refers to local education authorities making arrangements to provide parents with information on SEN matters? Who will provide sufficiently dispassionate advice to enable parents to make their minds up?
Parents are not a homogeneous commodity. Some of the parents whom I have had the pleasure of dealing with at Pear Tree are articulate, well resourced and remarkable people, and will fight to the last for what is right for their child. Some children come from fractured homes where there may be only one parent and the child does not always get the attention that he or she deserves because there are many siblings and the family does not have the resources. Who will explain the arguments in an understandable and dispassionate way so that a proper choice can be made? There needs to be a debate so that we can avoid any stigmatisation, but we must also ensure that the right advice is given to the parents of a child with special educational needs so that a proper choice can be made to meet that child's needs.

Mr. Willis: I have listened carefully to the passionate and cogent argument that the right hon. Gentleman has put. How is it compatible with the policy of members of his Front-Bench team—of getting rid of local education authorities and taking away that plank of advocacy which has hitherto been the central role of the LEA on behalf of the very children to whom he has rightly referred?

Mr. Jack: As the hon. Gentleman may have observed, there is more than one source of advice. The Government point to the role of the voluntary sector as a possible source of help. We are debating the Bill in the context of the present arrangements, to which my remarks are directed.
There is an omission in the Bill. What has saddened me more than anything is the fact that, after hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of effort has been put into enabling children to come out of Pear Tree with every possible resource at their disposal to enhance their further living, they then face a real problem that is not dealt with by the Bill—it does not say what is supposed to happen next.
I have known many cases of children who have found it difficult to go into training, employment or, more importantly, the specialist institutions that provide further training, nurture, succour, education and comfort for the children who come from Pear Tree school. One faces an enormous battle to give those children the opportunity to derive benefit from the investment that has been made in them by the Pear Tree schools of this world. Lancashire county council often fights against providing resources for those children. If they do not get those resources, all our efforts to improve special education, whether in mainstream or special schools, will be wasted.
The university sector has not so far been covered in the debate. I received from the university of Lancaster a copy of the minutes of a meeting of its court held on 10 February. It was supportive of the Bill, but said that it could be improved by
including a definition of disability which adequately covers all those with an impairment which may affect their education. For example, a student with dyslexia may be able to concentrate for a short period of time but will need modifications when taking a three-hour exam".
I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that Lancaster university, as well as others, will be contacted, so we can be sure that its observations on the way these powers can be strengthened further will be taken fully into account.
Many of us speak passionately and with some knowledge about special education. The most important thing is to keep the child at the centre of our arguments; but I hope that the Bill will not lead to a lessening of choice or to any diminution of the resources devoted to caring for the many children who find it difficult to give us their own views, and for whom we therefore have a huge responsibility.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) indeed spoke with passion. He also spoke with great eloquence, and with first-hand knowledge of the issues. Let me simply say this to the right hon. Gentleman. if the Opposition support the principle of the Bill—as they have said they do—and if they also feel that the Bill needs further amendment, they should surely vote for it on Second Reading, try to amend it in Committee and, if they fail to amend it satisfactorily at that stage, decide whether to vote for Third Reading.
It strikes me as foolish for the Opposition to break the all-party consensus that has been built up, not just in both Houses but among all the organisations that have worked together on the Bill. I ask them to reconsider, even at

this eleventh hour. By all means let them fight for their amendments in Committee, and then make a decision on Third Reading, but I urge them not to divide the House tonight.
I agree with many members of other parties who have spoken about the importance of special schools. I support such schools. There are many excellent special schools in my constituency; a number of my constituents attend them, are flourishing, and would flourish only in those schools. Nothing in the Bill undermines special schools, but the Opposition amendment would undermine them. Some local education authorities would undoubtedly use it as a cop-out. It would enable them to keep children out of mainstream schools when it was inconvenient for children to be in such schools because the authorities had not made sufficient provision. It would also enable some LEAs not to put children into special schools when that was their parents' wish, because they could not provide the necessary places and wanted to force the children into mainstream schools. If the Opposition are serious about supporting special schools—and I accept that they are, for very good reasons—I ask them to think carefully about their amendment.
We need to continue the dialogue about the Bill. One of the most powerful aspects of its progress is the fact that it has developed as far as it has as a result of dialogue. The Government were accused earlier of not listening, and of not being prepared to accept amendments. In whatever other contexts that n may or may not be true, it is not true in the context of this Bill, which has been improved considerably in the House of Lords. The Government have listened, and the Secretary of State said earlier that he was prepared to go on listening if we continued the dialogue.
I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on autism. I would not presume to speak for the group tonight, but my experience of working with it, the people whom I have met and the organisations with which I have been able to discuss the issues have given me some ideas. Before relaying the concerns of autistic people and the organisations that look after them, however, I want to tell the House a story about a child with special needs—not autistic—whom I encountered about three weeks ago, when visiting a mainstream primary school in my constituency. It was one of those mainstream primary schools that were built about 30 years ago. I shall not name it, because the individual concerned might then be identifiable, and the privacy of that person should be respected. The school is in a dreadful state and essentially needs to be replaced. I was visiting to see the damage that had been done to it recently and to talk to the head teacher about the campaign to renew it.
Inside the school hall, there was a little girl who looked very much like my own daughter. She was about six years old and had long, curly hair. She was jumping on a trampoline with the help of a learning assistant, who was holding her hand. The little girl was counting each time she jumped, and, every time she reached the number five, she would fling herself high into the air. She was laughing as she jumped, and her laughter was absolutely infectious and filled the hall.
I continued my tour with the head teacher. When I returned to the hall, the little girl was running across it, still laughing and giggling. She would run back and forth


and the learning assistant would catch her and then set her free again. As she ran past me, I realised that she had no eyes.
That little girl is in a mainstream school. I suspect that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is the only hon. Member who knows how much guts it must take for that six-year-old to run across a hall with no one there to guide her and no idea of what is in the hall. My right hon. Friend is probably the only hon. Member who has experienced anything remotely like that.
That little girl has so much guts that, if we give her the support she needs, she could achieve anything. As I said, she is being supported in a mainstream primary school, where she is able to fulfil herself. At some point, however, she will have to make the transition to a secondary school. After that, she will have to make the transition to a sixth form, and then to higher education. Each of those transitions could be a huge obstacle for her, but I believe that she can do anything. We have to give her that chance. It is up to us—the House, her local education authority, her parents and her teachers—to give her that chance.
A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was reported in the newspapers as saying that he did not think he would ever be Prime Minister because the country was not ready for a blind Prime Minister. I disagree with him. I think that. when the present incumbent decides to give up the post, my right hon. Friend is one of several senior Ministers who would make an excellent Prime Minister.
I also believe that, if we give that little girl the support that she needs throughout her life, if that is the type of course that she decides to pursue, she, too, could make the transition—but only if, throughout her life, she has access to the type of education that is right for her. That is why we have to clear away obstacles and ensure that every mainstream school and every college is available to little girls like her.
The Bill identifies the need to remove obstacles. It says that the parents choice will be paramount. An additional caveat has also been included in the Bill—on the efficiency of education for other children. I admit that, if I had a magic wand, I would wave it and remove that caveat. The only caveat that I would leave in the Bill is the one concerning the primacy of parents" wishes.
Someone has to speak on behalf of the child. If we include caveats such as that proposed by the Opposition, on the particular needs of the child, the parents wishes will no longer be paramount and someone else will have to judge the weight to give to each caveat. The parents wishes will have to be subordinated to the judgment of another authority. Parents wishes are not perfect and some will need a lot of guidance to make choices. However, parents are the best hope we have because they know their children best.
The Bill is going in the right direction, and I hope that the Opposition will come to understands that. The Special Educational Consortium understands that. It says:
The Consortium believes that proposals contained in this Bill will dramatically improve the quality of education available for disabled pupils".
Many other organisations have a similar view; my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) quoted many of them. The National Autistic Society certainly has that view, and the society and the Special Educational

Consortium want the Bill and seek no further amendment to it. They believe that the Bill can have a dramatic effect on the people whom they represent.
The Bill will be important for autistic people because of the duty to provide a mainstream place. Many people have quoted examples of how a mainstream place can be important. The National Autistic Society has identified a girl of average ability with autism who was excluded from mainstream primary schools because the teachers said that her problems were too great. Yet a secondary school was prepared to help her, with a dedicated team that was prepared to look after her needs. She made a great transition to that secondary mainstream school, and has now independently gone on to art college. That shows that we sometimes close our eyes to the possibility of what can be achieved in mainstream schools.
The duty to plan is regarded by the National Autistic Society as a vital amendment in relation to children with autistic spectrum disorders. Two specific areas of planning that need to be considered are transition and staff training. The transition of a child between different schools is vital, and a child who is flourishing in one school must be allowed the opportunity to flourish in the next school.
One example of good practice is Blackpool local education authority, where school support assistants are trained to make transition plans for pupils. An example from the authority is that of an autistic boy who was identified as needing to use public transport to get to his secondary school. The school support assistants made plans to introduce him to public transport and make sure that he could use it to make the transition.
On staff training, an example of which 1 am aware is that of a little girl who was in a mainstream primary school. She was starting to become disruptive when all the children were sitting around for story-telling and reading. The reason, it was worked out, was that because the child was autistic, she needed a fixed place in the circle. Because she was not given a fixed place, she became uncomfortable and disruptive. The staff realised what was going on and put a red carpet tile down, explaining to her that whenever the class was sitting in a circle, she would sit on the red carpet tile. After that, there was no more trouble from her because she had her place and understood what was necessary. That sort of staff training is vital if we are to introduce autistic children into mainstream schools.
We have to look at teaching strategies. Classes must have visual structures and a clarity of purpose. The objectives of the lesson must be set out so that autistic children can understand them. They will then learn much better and feel more comfortable.
If we are going to plan, we must understand how many people we are planning for. So far as autism is concerned, we still have no real idea. The Government have started to recognise the need to work out how many autistic children there are, but we need to speed up that process. A few decades ago, it was assumed that only four people in 10,000 were autistic. In the 1970s, that figure was raised by studies that suggested that 20 people in 10,000 were autistic. By 1993, the estimate was 71 in 10,000, and the National Autistic Society currently estimates that 91 people in 10,000 are autistic. Recent studies suggest that one person in 175 is autistic.
Moreover, there has been an increase in the number of pupils who are now considered to be autistic, and perhaps one in eight pupils with a special need are now thought to be autistic. That matter must be addressed, or planning will be impossible.
Early years education for autistic children must also be looked at. If children up to the age of two can be identified as autistic, we can start giving them intensive help, with the result that they will do very much better in later life. However, we must be able to identify such children and to ensure that early years education is available for them. The people who help in the schools must also be able to employ the techniques needed to identify autistic people.
As has been said, the Bill is a milestone. It will dramatically improve the lives of autistic children and make a huge difference to children of all disabilities. At this eleventh hour, I appeal to the Opposition not to break the huge consensus that has built up in support of the Bill. I urge them to step back from the position that they have adopted, and think again.
I hope that the Opposition will work with the Government in Committee to try and get the amendments that they want into the Bill. However, the important thing is that we all carry on working together to deliver what is a vital measure for disabled people.

Mr. David Amess: I rise to support the reasoned amendment tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I do so because I am anxious about certain parts of the Bill—my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) gave a fair account of the problems involved.
All hon. Members are united in our desire to give all our children the best possible opportunity, regardless of whether they are disabled or have learning difficulties. It is interesting to reflect on how legislation is first brought to the House. Does it come as a result of the work of pressure groups, or is it based on the advice of civil servants? Does it derive from the experiences of individual Members of Parliament? Some hon. Members are disabled, and many had special learning difficulties when they were children. When I was a small child, I had to go to a speech therapist for three years, reciting the phrase "how now, brown cow" and so on. I am very grateful for the help that I received, and not at all ashamed.
It is on the record—and I am sure that the Minister will accept this—that the Secretary of State did not entirely enjoy his experience at school. My brother-in-law is blind, and my wife's sister has very little sight. They are about the same age as the Secretary of State, and went to a school similar to the one that he attended. However, their experiences are different from his. He has all the power, and they have no power at all.
I want to share with the House the practical effects of the Bill. When my noble Friends Lady Blatch and Lord Baker spoke in the other place, they were very concerned about how the Bill would be funded. Lord Baker thought that the costs would be astronomical in educational terms, and felt that the Government had not estimated the financial consequences of what they were doing. The care

in the community policy was very expensive, as the House knows, and I believe that the Bill will also turn out to be very expensive.
At the start of the debate, hon. Members asked whether anyone could point to an organisation that was not in favour of the Bill. Given that other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not spend time on that point, but there are any number of organisations—

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amess: I will not give way, as that would be unfair to other hon. Members. I want to tell the House that there are organisations that have expressed concerns about the Bill, among them the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. The letter from the National Association of Head Teachers, which has been referred to, shows that that association, too, has reservations, which it outlines. 
I want to share with the House what has happened in Southend. The Liberal-Labour council, driven by the Government's intention to develop their policy of inclusion, decided to consult. The council's proposals have upset parents and children alike. I went round all the schools, and not one parent wrote saying "David, for goodness' sake, we must close these special schools and put the children into mainstream schools."
My constituency has magnificent schools, including Lancaster, Kingsdown, St. Christopher, Fairways special needs unit and Priory school, which, along with the school mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, also received a magnificent Ofsted report. In the neighbouring constituency we have St. Nicholas school. I pay tribute to all the teachers for the magnificent job that they do.
The chairman of the education committee. Councillor Mrs. Sally Can, said to me that this was a fine policy, but did the Government realise that, perhaps uniquely, there was a teacher crisis in Southend? We do not have the number of teachers that we need in our secondary and junior schools. One need only look at The Times Educational Supplement, which advertises a huge number of vacancies, to realise that there is a dire shortage of teachers. Is it any wonder, considering the Government's policy outlined in circular 10/99? There are three cases in Essex of children who have been caught with drugs on school premises. Government circular 10/99 has enabled the parents to appeal against the exclusion of such pupils. The Government's policy is that if children bring drugs into school their parents can appeal against their expulsion and they can be taken back. Children can be permanently excluded only if they are actually selling drugs on school premises.
That has obviously undermined a number of head teachers, who have quite rightly expelled children caught with drugs on school premises. However, as a result of Government circular 10/99, whose potential consequences the Government presumably fully understood when they issued it, the good reputation of those heads has been completely undermined
I spoke this afternoon to Mr. Peter Brown from Essex Mencap about the Bill. He said that everyone welcomes inclusion in so far as it means assisting people with learning disabilities to access community facilities where it is their wish to do so. Those are not my words; they are the words of Mr. Peter Brown, who also said that although


politically correct thinking says that the learning disabled should use community facilities, in fact in many cases they prefer to associate with people who are also learning disabled. Mr. Brown drew an analogy: people want to play tennis with others on their level, not necessarily with professionals. Mr. Brown said that of course Mencap was against discrimination and that it was not against the learning disabled having access to community facilities. However, he was wary of the danger of pushing people with learning disabilities to do something that they were not necessarily comfortable with for the sake of political correctness.
The head teacher of one of our excellent special schools said that if we are to begin the process of inclusion, we must ensure that mainstream schools have the right resources and staff to provide services.
I presume that Labour Members are putting it around that the Conservative party is opposed to helping children with learning difficulties and disabled children. However, we all know that that is not so. As parliamentarians, we want to be party to good, sensible legislation, so we should scrutinise measures.
I salute all those teachers who are working so hard. We have a tremendous teacher shortage at present. It is all very well for the Government to say that this Bill is wonderful and that it will help all our children, but it will fail if it is not carefully thought through and if we do not have the resources to back it up.

Miss Anne Begg: Like many Members, I welcome the Bill. I, too, have received a large number of representations from organisations in Scotland; they also welcome the Bill and hope that it will pass speedily through this place so that it can be enacted before a general election comes along.
I have always felt strongly about the subject of the Bill—it is very dear to my heart. Apart from my first four and a half years and the past four years since my election to this place, I have spent all my life in education. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is not in his place—although perhaps I am glad. Earlier, he was jumping up and down heckling my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I spent a long time in education not because I was a slow learner, but because I became a teacher. I felt passionately about that. However, I almost did not become a teacher, because in 1973, when I applied to the college of education in Aberdeen, I was told that I could not go there. Why? Because I had an encroaching disability, and people with disabilities could not be teachers. I suffered discrimination.
Had my disability been slightly more advanced while I was at school, I might not have been able to attend a spanking new school in 1970, when I was in the fourth year of secondary school. At that time, I was still walking, although my legs were beginning to break and so on. Had I been in a wheelchair, I would riot have been able to go to that school, but would have had to go somewhere else. As I lived in a rural community, it would probably have been several miles away—possibly in Dundee, 26 miles away. Thirty years ago, that was a long distance. In 1970, no one even thought that someone in a wheelchair could attend mainstream school.
I felt passionately about the fact that education was left out of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That was a glaring omission and I am glad that the Government are putting it right.
In my comments, I had intended to concentrate on part II of the Bill, because its anti-discrimination provisions are relevant to Scotland; part I deals with special educational needs and does not apply to Scotland. However, as I have been called towards the end of the debate and shall perhaps be the last Labour Back Bencher to speak before the winding-up speeches, I want to correct some of the impressions given by Conservative Members.
I have looked carefully at the Bill. Nothing in it suggests the end of special schools, and no Labour Member has said that. I, more than most people, appreciate that, due to advances in medical science, an increasing number of babies and young children survive and live with severe disabilities who would have died in previous generations. They will need an enormous amount of support if they are to be educated. Sometimes that will be in special schools, but I find that, in Scotland, they are frequently educated in special units of mainstream schools. The situation may be different in England and Wales.
Those children do not necessarily follow a mainstream curriculum. Indeed, they may not be very integrated with the mainstream. They go through the same school gate, but they attend a specially equipped unit. They often mix with the other pupils at interval time and lunch time, but there is a special curriculum that they can access. In some cases, they mix and match: sometimes they dip into the mainstream curriculum; at other times, they are taught in the special unit. I taught at a school where there was such a unit. Nothing in the Bill outlaws any of that provision.
The Opposition want the Bill to be passed, but if their amendment is accepted, the Bill will not receive its Second Reading and it will fall. Thus many parents who want their children to receive mainstream education will be denied it, as happens now. Parents who want special education for their children will not be denied it under the Bill, but if it is not passed, plenty of children—perhaps younger versions of myself—will be denied access to the school of their choice, because the local authority or the school can say that it is too expensive to put in the necessary ramps or lift, or that it is too difficult to find a way round the barriers that exist in the school. I therefore hope that the Opposition will think again and reconsider the Bill.
I had intended to concentrate on part II, and I shall do so now. Much has been said about whether the Government listen. I can attest, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), that the Government have listened to those representing the Scottish dimension. RNIB Scotland and Children in Scotland were concerned that the model of English special educational needs provision would be used as a delivery mechanism in Scotland. They felt that that might be inappropriate if rolled out in Scotland.
The Bill is interesting because it is, I think, the first of its kind—it will put the devolution settlement to the test. We are legislating on a reserved matter—anti-discrimination legislation—but it will be applied to a devolved matter, education. The test is to find out whether the right relationships exist between the House and the


Scottish Parliament, and between the officials at the Department for Education and Employment and those at the Scottish Executive.
Initially, charities in Scotland, such as Children in Scotland and RNIB Scotland, were concerned that perhaps the relationship was not right, but many of their anxieties were laid to rest after a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who has responsibilities for disabled people. They were anxious about two matters: the code of practice and the planning duties.
I shall deal first with the planning duties. The Bill states:
The duty to produce an accessibility strategy or plan will not extend to Scotland.
That rang alarm bells at the charities, as they thought, "Well, if the Bill is not going to extend to Scotland, LEAs will have no duty to provide proper access and auxiliary help." However, that is the devolved element of the Bill, so it will be up to the Scottish Executive to produce their version of that provision to ensure that the accessibility strategy is in place. There will not be a planning duty, because that is not how such things are done in Scotland.
It is interesting that the Scottish Minister who will be in charge of implementing those provisions is the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Aberdeen, South—a Liberal Democrat, working in a Labour-led coalition. I spoke to him yesterday, and he is very well aware of the issues. I am sure that the Scottish children's charities will be in touch with him to ensure that, if the Bill is passed, the time scale for implementation in Scotland is in line with that in England, and that that is done speedily and timeously, as I hope it will be in England.
I seek the Minister's assurance that the Government will continue to work with Ministers in the Scottish Executive and their officials. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has already paid tribute to the officials at the Department for Education and Employment. I should like to add my thanks to them and the Minister for listening and for taking those concerns seriously.
I appreciate that, whether in Scotland or England and Wales, there must be a rolling programme within the strategic development plan that will make schools accessible. I understand that we cannot do everything at once. We cannot suddenly make all schools accessible to every child overnight, and the needs that should be met first are those in schools with children who have real needs; they should he foremost on any plan. However, I seek an assurance from the Minister that we shall try to speed up that process to make it as rapid as possible. It is not just pupils who use schools. Parents have to visit them for parents evenings, and I hope that there are more disabled teachers than there were when 1 left the profession four short years ago. I hope that I will not have to go back into the profession—although I must say that that would not be a problem for me. I really enjoyed my time in it, but "Not just yet, please" is my plea to my constituents in Aberdeen, South.
Parents, teachers, relatives and visitors all use schools. When I was a teacher, I used to coach the debating team in my school and I had enormous problems getting into other schools when I visited them with the debating team. I would not like to tell the House how many flights of stairs I had to be carried up to reach debating halls. It was ridiculous and no teacher would have wanted that to happen, but that was often the only way in which I could get to the halls.
Matters are improving, and such problems do not exist in every school and local authority. Things have moved on dramatically in 30 years, and there are examples of good practice, but the time has come to legislate to ensure that those problems that still exist are properly addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun also referred to the need for a Scottish code of practice. I reiterate that point because it is important. The code of practice is not just about physical adjustments, as the example of Julia shows. She arrived in Arbroath aged 11 with her mother, having gone to special schools throughout her primary career. Her mother wanted to put her into mainstream education, so she looked for a secondary school and Julia arrived at the school in which I taught before I was elected.
Julia had severe cerebral palsy. Although she had good oral skills, she could not move much of her body. She had an electric wheelchair and, with an auxiliary, she was happy at school. Her mother told me that, for the first time in Julia's life, people would say hello to her and ask her how she was when she went down the street on a Saturday morning. She had never been part of a community before. Attending school was good for Julia and good for the other children. The worst scallywag in the class bought her a box of chocolates for her birthday. We think, but are not sure, that he bought them; they came in a brown paper parcel.
The interesting point about Julia's story is not that she went to a mainstream school, but how she ended up at the school in which I taught. There are two schools in Arbroath: the one in which I taught is a 1960s monstrosity with glass, many different levels and lots of stairs; the other is a brand-new school that is properly adapted with wheelchair access everywhere. Julia lived in the catchment area of the new school, so why did she end up at the school with worse access?
The school was not a problem for me. I was an English teacher on the ground floor and the pupils came to me, but there were problems in the school. Julia came to my school because, when her mother visited the two schools, she found that their attitudes were totally different. One said, "Oh, I'm not sure how we can cope with that; that might be quite difficult" while the other said, "Yes, I see that that might be a problem, but I am sure that we shall find a solution." It found a solution and Julia was able to get upstairs even though there was no lift. The local education authority bought a brand new, super-duper, stair-climbing wheelchair. It cost £6,000 and it belonged not to Julia but to the LEA. However, that piece of lateral thinking got Julia round the school relatively cheaply. The solution was certainly much cheaper than installing lifts. I echo the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: that was seeing a way round the problem rather than seeing the problem.
Education is the basis for ensuring that young people are given equality of opportunity. It is crucial if we are to raise their expectations and aspirations. We must give them goals to aim for, hope for the future and the opportunity to realise their potential.
Young people with disabilities need those opportunities as much as their peer group. If the education system discriminates against them, that discrimination will follow them throughout their lives, denying them the chance to succeed and to be all that they can be Discrimination has no place in education, which is why I am pleased that the Labour Government will outlaw it. I make a last minute plea to the Opposition: please withdraw your amendment. Some matters can be argued in Committee, and it would be inappropriate to vote against Second Reading tonight.

Mr. Tim Boswell: The debate has been fascinating and was enlivened by a range of distinguished contributions. I sat through nearly all the proceedings missing only, I think, the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne). I found myself sympathising with many of the points made, not least—if I may say so without invidiousness—those by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). There has been a leitmotif—I do not know why—that has cast the Opposition in the role of the bad guys because we have dared to move a reasoned amendment. The hon. Lady will appreciate that it is outwith my power to bestow a last minute change of heart, even at her blandishment. Perhaps the usual channels will reflection the possibility that were we not to proceed with our reasoned amendment, they might drop their programme motion.
The implication is that we are not acting in good faith, yet the Government are requiring us to conclude the Bill's consideration in Committee by 5 April. I do not think that we can have a full discussion about the proper issues unless we put down a marker of dissent and then persist in that dissent by tabling amendments in Committee. Incidentally, that is the role of the Opposition and part of the democratic process. I will award a small prize—not, of course, a pecuniary one—to any Labour Member who is prepared to tell me when the Government have been defeated in the past four years as a result of an Opposition amendment on Second Reading. If they are as worried as they say, it makes me wonder whether they are beginning to run scared of the fate that they will shortly meet.
The debate has been good natured, for all the noises off. It has been informed by passion and commitment on both sides of the Chamber to the cause of special education in its widest sense. In general, hon. Members who contributed felt for children with special educational needs, their parents and—this was eloquently put—their teachers and those who resource them.
The Opposition approach the Bill with three general principles in mind. First, there
is no substantial disagreement…with the broad objectives of the Bill."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 645.]
Those were the words of my noble Friend Baroness Blatch on Second Reading. That has been our consistent position, and it remains so.
Secondly, I have no objection in principle to inclusion as such. There are plenty of excellent examples of inclusion in secondary schools and some rural primary

schools in my constituency. I have also seen some good examples of what one might loosely call blended provision. For example, a primary school near my constituency, to which some of my constituents send their children, perfectly blends dedicated special provision with other provision. If we were really in the business of the third way, we could follow that example rather than others that I might suggest another time.
Looking at the legislative framework, I consider the Education Act 1996, which consolidated measures and is the basis on which the Bill amends provisions. It reflects legislation that I helped to pass through the House when I had just become a Minister late in 1992. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) will remember debating it. Looking back, I was surprised to find it is a little stronger on inclusion than I remembered it to be. We should say that there is no ideological objection to inclusion, nor is there any objection in principle to the extension of disability rights. Much has been said about why education was not incorporated in the 1996 Act. There were difficulties, including those with resources, which have cropped up in other areas, and the attitude of vice-chancellors, who might not have taken kindly to what they saw as an imposition on their territory and academic freedom.
Leaving aside the judgment that was made at that time, we can say that for a variety of reasons, such as good leadership in the Disability Rights Commission, which we also support, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 has bedded down and shown that it can work without unduly disturbing consequences, so this is an appropriate time to extend it to education. However, enough has been said tonight to make it clear that even if the Bill is not party politically controversial, there is a good deal to discuss and argue about.
I, too, met the Gloucestershire parents and children from Alderman Knight school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), and I realise that they feel very strongly. I understand that 32,000 people have signed a petition to the LEA in protest at what is being proposed for that school.
There is controversy, and the place to deal with it is here. Clearly, the Bill has already been improved by detailed scrutiny in another place. In fact, if I may mix my metaphors, the walls of Jericho fell without a shot having been fired because the Government withdrew the objectionable proposal to replace the word "specify" in the proposed code on statements with the words "set out". We felt that the original proposed change was unacceptable, and the Government withdrew the proposal before it was ever debated.
A good deal has been done by noble Lords from different parties to put the Bill right, but that does not absolve us—or, dare I say, with respect, Ministers—from the task of taking it through Committee in this place and considering it properly on its merits. It is in that spirit that we tabled the reasoned amendment on which we will invite the House to divide. Principally, it highlights our concern that the educational interests of the child should come first.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) said--I particularly noted this phrase—coercive social inclusion could be counter-productive. The principle of putting the child first is surely unexceptionable in all quarters of the House and


occasionally even begins to stray into the speech of Ministers; yet that principle or caveat is apparently being deleted because it is alleged, even by the Special Educational Consortium, to which we have talked, to have damaged the interests of children. The idea that removing a right makes it easier to uphold that right is counter-intuitive. Even if we are wrong, the matter needs to be properly debated. We have all heard flip political statements, notably from current Ministers, in which the phrase, "I have no intention of means "I will". In all events, we need to consider the apparent mismatch between principle and practice.
Our second concern relates to the implied agenda for tilting the balance of special education towards inclusion only. We believe that if parents and children are to exercise an informed choice, they need a range of providers in which to exercise that choice. If, for example, an LEA has closed all its special schools—a case in London was cited—there is simply no choice. An LEA in a rural, dispersed shire such as my own may have special schools grouped in inconvenient places that might be as much as 30 or 40 miles away from the residence of the child concerned, so there is no effective choice.
If the local education authority fights consistently in principle against referring pupils out of area, whether to maintained or, if appropriate, independent special schools, there is at best a restricted choice. Alternatively, an LEA could be driven—possibly by tacit resource complaints—to opt for inclusion on the cheap, with a fanfare of trumpets to say how modern it is being, but without proper resourcing or teacher training in mainstream schools.
Having commented earlier on the schools access initiative, I must point out that it is not only the capital side that matters, as the report has shown. The back-up with current expenditure and the resourcing of teachers and curriculum access also matter. If that proper resourcing cannot be provided, the choice left to parents is an unappealing one.
I am particularly concerned about reviews. When counties such as Gloucestershire, about which we have heard a great deal today, or my own county of Northamptonshire, which has given rise to a little apprehension, review their provision, they might be doing so not out of a genuine concern to reappraise, improve or—dare I say—modernise the pattern of provision. They might be following a hidden agenda.
The problem with hidden agendas is that we never know what they are until it is too late to do anything about them. Such a hidden agenda as I have described could reflect the fact that either the accountants or the ideologues have been sent in to wipe out the special schools. It would be welcome if Ministers could calm our fears, but those points will need careful examination before we can go out and say that, after all, it is all clear and there is no danger. However, I fear that there is danger, in some cases.
Beyond those issues, there is still a great deal more in the Bill to talk about. A matter that I have already raised implicitly was also raised in another place by my noble Friend Lord Baker of Dorking, who said eloquently, with the authority of an ex-Secretary of State, that there was a problem with resources. It is self-evident that if inclusion

is to be properly resourced, it will be an expensive matter. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) spoke eloquently about that earlier.

Mr. Willis: indicated assent.

Mr. Boswell: I note that the hon. Gentleman is now nodding in agreement with what I have said.
It is incontestable that the number of children with statements has risen sharply as a proportion of total pupil numbers. There has been an increase of about 25 per cent. over five years, compared with an overall increase of only 5 per cent. in pupil numbers during that time. The cost directly attributable to statements—only a small proportion of the overall cost of special needs—rose in the comparable period from £290 million annually to £370 million.
On the wider expenditure front, the Audit Commission has estimated that 15 per cent. of the total spend on education is allocated to special educational needs. Dr. John Marks, working on a wider definition, has suggested a spend of roughly double that percentage. In any event, we need greater transparency in the delivery of provision. We also need to ensure that the resources earmarked for special educational needs go through and end up with the children, about whom we all say we care most.
I shall not let this occasion pass without referring to the comments in the brief provided by the National Union of Teachers, which states:
The positive measures in the Bill will only be successful if they are backed by adequate funding. The SEN provisions in the Bill are not without significant resource implications. The Union believes that the Government should audit all the costs involved in implementing
those provisions. The NUT has also expressed concern about the need to obtain an assurance in the House of Commons
that special schools have a continuing role and future.
It has been suggested that opposition to the Bill has disappeared. However, l must say in all seriousness to Ministers that there ire still concerns about many points. Those concerns need to be raised and to be answered. With respect to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, I should not like the disability clauses to pass without further comment. I am not a real lawyer but a lawyer manqué, and have always taken a certain interest in human rights and judicial review issues.
It is remarkable and a little disturbing that, in a different context, the Royal National Institute for the Blind has pointed out that many thousands of cases under part II of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 have already been taken to tribunals, which are the recourse under that provision, but the number of cases involving breaches or alleged breaches of part III duties, although they cannot quite be counted on the fingers of one hand, are under 50, as they have to go to court. Having a background in further and higher education, I am disturbed by the fact that such students, although they have the same nominal rights as school pupils, have to take their cases to court, not the tribunal, as school students do.
The point is made even more sharply if we consider the case of identical twins with identical special educational needs who are over 16, the statutory school-leaving age. One might remain in school and avail himself of rights


which he could press at a tribunal; the other, after leaving school, might go to further education college and would have to assert his rights in court. That amounts to a functional discrimination which, in turn, may well find its way to the courts, when decisions and situations are well traced by legal experts.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): What would the hon. Gentleman do?

Mr. Boswell: With respect, the hon. Lady is a member of the Government, and she and her colleagues need to decide what they are going to do about those legitimate issues. They might even spend a little time in Committee explaining to us what they propose to do.
All those matters give rise to genuine concern among parents and others.

Mr. Levitt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, even when it has the right to do so, the Disability Rights Commission prides itself on not going all the way to court and resolving cases before they reach court?

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman graciously allowed me to intervene twice during his speech, so I am ready to allow him to participate, even though time is short. He is aware that I am in close touch with the Disability Rights Commission. I admire very much the good sense of Bert Massie and the way in which the commission has set about its business. I am sure that litigation should be the last, not the first, recourse. However, once one starts granting legal rights, litigation will not be confined to the commission; the odd barrack room lawyer, who may have nothing to do with the commission, may wish to take a case to court and create difficulties. All I am asking, quite reasonably, is that Ministers think about the possibility and come up with some answers.
In conclusion, those matters all give rise to genuine concerns among parents; they cannot simply be shrugged off. In a moment, we are going on to debate a motion on the handling of the Bill. I fear that I he House will hear from me again on that subject and I do not intend to rehearse my remarks here. All that I would say is that we owe it to parents, children and special education providers in this most sensitive of educational sectors to give the Bill—whatever its objectives, aspirations, and highly acceptable aspects, and however improved by a helpful definition of how the Secretary of State will approach statementing and how local authorities are to tackle it—proper consideration. We need to explore the concerns which we have expressed in good faith and to which others have added.
We need to be sympathetic to the case and need to handle it sensitively. We need common sense; in fact, we might say that we need sound sense, rather than soundbites. The children, for whom we are all concerned, deserve no less.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): We have had a useful and wide-ranging debate on the Bill. Many right hon. and hon. Members have used their considerable experience of and interest in the subject to make important

and well-argued contributions, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who are doughty campaigners on these matters. The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) made thoughtful contributions, drawing on their expertise as former Ministers. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) made good use of his family links, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), in a moving and thoughtful speech, used her personal experience to good effect. Other hon. Members made important contributions, to which I shall refer in my response.
I am pleased that there has been general support from Government Members for the broad thrust of the Bill. However, I am disappointed that the Opposition will vote against the Bill. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) seemed to suggest that because it is not possible for the Opposition to muster enough votes to defeat the Government, it somehow does not matter that the Opposition intend to vote against Second Reading. People outside who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood pointed out, are keen to see the Bill get through, will note the attitude of the Opposition this evening.
Through the Bill, we will give our attention to the needs of pupils with special educational needs and the rights of disabled pupils, students and adult learners to access education. To put that in context, one in five pupils will be identified as having a special educational need at some point in his or her school career. There are more than 1 million young people aged 24 and under who meet the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In addition, there are more than 60,000 adult learners with disabilities. Those are the people whom the Bill will benefit directly.
The Bill in its present form reflects the changes that we made after considering representations made to us and amendments tabled in another place. We believe that the Bill is better for that. As regards the operation of the new duties in the Bill, we are not interested in a dogmatic or a one-size-fits-all approach; rather, we are concerned with what works in practice. We want an inclusive education system that offers excellence and choice.
Opposition Members made much of their concern to safeguard the needs and interests of children with special educational needs. It was implied by several Opposition Members that the Government were not concerned about those needs. In fact, as several Government Members pointed out, the entire SEN framework supports the best interests of children. Our concern is that the requirement to recognise the needs of the child as a caveat in the inclusion clause has been gravely misused.
For example, a boy with a physical and hearing impairment was successfully included in a mainstream nursery school. When the time came for him to transfer to primary school, the local education authority directed him to a special school, miles away. The LEA said that a mainstream school would never be able to cope. It never considered what could be done to facilitate his continuing inclusion.
The child's parents had to battle to persuade the LEA that a mainstream school could cope. After an appeal to the SEN tribunal, the boy was welcomed into a mainstream school, where he is thriving. The parents should not have had to fight for their child's inclusion. The retention of the "needs of the child" caveat would mean that children who could and should benefit from inclusion would continue to be denied a mainstream place.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. For the record, can she tell us whether that was under the present regime, where the "rights of the child" caveat is embodied? If the decision had been left to the LEA exclusively, would there have been a change? Is it not the case that the rights of the child were embodied and were eventually enforced by the tribunal, and that that effected the change in provision?

Jacqui Smith: No. The point is that the parents had to fight for the child to get into a mainstream school. We want a positive commitment to inclusion. Clause 1 is supported by the Special Educational Consortium, an umbrella for 250 organisations. It is also supported by the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, Mencap and the National Autistic Society, even if it is not supported by the Opposition. I know to which of those bodies I would rather listen.
The Opposition have also suggested that the Bill prevents LEAs from funding independent placements, but that is completely wrong. The abilities and duties of LEAs in respect of funding such placements, which are set out in section 348 of the Education Act 1996, are specifically preserved by proposed new section 316A(3), which is contained in clause 1. They also argued that clause 1 would make it harder for parents whose children have statements to gain special school places. Again, that is simply untrue. We have always argued that one size does not fit all, which is why we keep signalling an important and continuing role for special schools.
Clause 1 strengthens the right of children with statements to obtain mainstream places and fully preserves parents' rights to object to mainstream provision. It does not make it harder for parents to gain special school places for children with statements. The Bill underlines the fact that parents' wishes should be listened to.
It has also been argued that the Bill is an attack on special schools. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, we want mainstream and special schools to work together and we see an important and continuing role for them. The overall size of the specialist sector has not reduced. Since 1996, it has remained broadly static and has catered for about 1.2 per cent. of children, or about 97,000 of them. Changes will continue to be made to ensure that provision reflects local circumstances and needs, as has always been the case.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Jacqui Smith: No; I am short of time.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) spoke about the special school in his constituency. I am sorry that he chose to attack Ministers personally for not turning up at his meeting. I must tell him that I received his invitation only this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), who has lobbied hard, will confirm my willingness to meet those concerned. The delegation that she brought to me represented a special school in her constituency, and I was happy to meet its members and discuss their concerns. I told them that we are committed to a buoyant and vibrant specialist sector, which explains why funding per pupil for maintained special schools has increased by 20 per cent. in real terms under the current Government. It is also why we have made available to non-maintained special schools direct grants, the standards fund, information and communications technology training, devolved formula funding, funding for teachers to pass thresholds and laptops. All that provision was not available under the previous Government.
The hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) rightly raised the issue of resources. Of course, not everything needs money to change. Much of the change that is needed will be brought about by shifting attitudes, but resources are important, which is why the £500 more per pupil that the Government have put into schools and the increase in the standards fund from £55 million this year to £82 million next :year are so significant. It also explains why the schools access initiative has increased to £220 million over the next three years. That comes on top of the general increase in capital spend, which has risen threefold on the amount that we inherited from the previous Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) spoke passionately about her constituents and has lobbied hard for investment in her constituency, so I am pleased that children in special and mainstream schools will see the benefit. We have made money available for excess in further and higher education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced £25 million more for early years. We learned today that the Conservatives are still unclear about whether they will match our funding for those purposes. The reality of their policies is that the money that LEAs currently spend on placements in independent schools would not be safeguarded under their spending plans. We have also heard that they are unclear about their free schools policy. Having said that all the money for special educational needs would go to schools, we now hear that it would stay in the local authority. Presumably the sign on the SEN officer's door would be changed from "local education authority" to "local authority". The Conservatives cannot have it both ways: they cannot promise more money to schools and then do U-turns sun as tonight's.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak raised important issues about early years education and my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and for Aberdeen, South discussed Scottish Executive responsibilities and particular issues for Scotland. As they said, I have written to the Scottish Executive because it is for Scottish Executive Ministers to decide how to respond to the disability rights taskforce recommendation on the statutory duty to plan to increase access. I am sure that their call for quick action has been heard.
The codes of practice were also mentioned. The Bill will confer powers on the Disability Rights Commission to produce either Great Britain-wide codes, separate codes for England and Wales and for Scotland or Great Britain-wide codes with Scottish chapters. Although the education and legal systems in which the new duties will apply differ, the duties themselves will be the same. When my hon. Friends met the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), she made it clear that we would be careful about Using experts from Scotland on the drafting groups for the code. There will be a GB-wide consultation and we shall consider separate chapters for Scotland.
The Bill will strengthen the SEN framework to improve the education services provided to children with SEN and their parents, and it will put right the previous Government's omission by removing the unjust exemption of education under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. No longer will an education provider be able to discriminate against a disabled pupil, student or adult learner on the ground of disability.
Education is the key to ensuring that everyone, regardless of individual needs and whatever their background, has the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Attitudes have shifted a long way from the days when disabled children often had little choice but to attend special schools or institutions and were frequently separated from their families and friends. Schools, colleges and universities are increasingly inclusive, but we are determined to maintain that progress and to support good work such as that which I saw last week at George Green's school in Tower Hamlets, which is an excellent example of a school where inclusion and high standards work together.
The school is unfazed by the diverse needs of the pupils it serves, including six who use wheelchairs and several with limited mobility, complex medical needs, severe communication difficulties and learning difficulties. The school's belief in inclusive education, like that of the Government, comes first. Everything else is then a challenge that can be surmounted. When that can-do ethos is combined with a strong focus on to teaching and learning, visionary leadership and, increasingly financial support from a Government who share its vision and are willing to invest in it, the result is a successful and popular school that achieves despite difficult circumstances.
The Bill and the Government's insvestment will ensure that many more schools can develop like George Green's and that many more children can benefit from what schools like it have to offer. As we said in our recent Green Paper, inclusion and equality of opportunity are an important part of our drive to promote higher standards. They represent the start of lifelong learning opportunities open to all, regardless of disability.
The Bill, which the Opposition oppose, demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that pupils, students and adult learners have the opportunity to meet their potential. It will ensure that we move one step closer to a society in which all are valued for what they can do, rather than judged for what they cannot, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 332.

Division No. 160]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) 
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Amess, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Loughton, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Luff, Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
McCrea, Dr William


Beggs, Roy
McIntosh, Miss Anne 


Bercow, John
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Blunt, Crispin Body,
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Sir Richard
McLoughlin, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Madel, Sir David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Malins, Humfrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Maples, John


Brady, Graham
Mates, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
May, Mrs Theresa Moss.


Burns, Simon
Malcolm


Butterfill, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Cash, William 
Norman, Archie


Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)
Ottaway, Richard 



Page, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Paice, James


Clappison, James
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Paterson, Owen


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Pickles, Eric



Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Prior, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Randall, John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Robathan, Andrew


 Day, Stephen
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Duncan, Alan
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Evans, Nigel
Ruffley, David


Fabricant, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Fallon, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Flight, Howard 
Shepherd, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fox, Dr Liam
Spicer, Sir Michael


Fraser, Christopher
Spring, Richard 


Gale, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Garnier, Edward
Steen, Anthony


 Gibb, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Gill, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Syms, Robert


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Ian (Esher&Walton)


Green, Damian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Grieve, Dominic Gummer,
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Hamilton. Rt Hon Sir Archie
Trend, Michael


Hawkins, Nick Hayes,
Tyrie, Andrew


John
Wafter, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Waterson, Nigel


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Wells, Bowen


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage) 
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jenkin, Bernard Key,
Wilkinson, John Willetts


Robert
 David


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward
 Tellers for the Ayes: 


Letwin, Oliver 
 Mr. Keith Simpson and 


Lidington,David
Mr.James Gray






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Crausby, David


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Ainger, Nick
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Ainsworth, Robert (Coy'try NE)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack(Copeland)


Alan, Richard



Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair



Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary 
Davidson, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bailey, Adrian
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Ballard, Jackie
Davis, Rt Hon Terry(B'ham Hodge H)


Banks, Tony



Barnes, Harry
Dawson, Hilton 


Bayley, Hugh
Dean, Mrs Janet 


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret 
Denham, Rt Hon John


Begg, Miss Anne Bell,
Dismore, Andrew 


Martin (Talton)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Donohoe, Brian H 


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Doran, Frank 


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Dowd, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Drew, David


Benton, Joe 
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bermingham, Gerald
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Berry. Roger
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Betts, Clive
Edwards, Huw 


Blackman, Liz
 Ellman,Mrs Louise


Blears, Ms Hazel
Ennis, Jeff


 Blizzard, Bob
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Fisher, Mark 


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Fitzpatrick, Jim 


Borrow, David
Flint, Caroline 


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flynn. Paul


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brake, Tom
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brand, Dr Peter 
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foulkes, George Fyfe, Maria


Brown. Russell (Dumfries)
Galloway, George 


Browne, Desmond
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Buck, Ms Karen 
Gerrard, Neil 


Burden, Richard 
Gibson, Dr Ian 


Burgon, Cohn 
Gidley, Sandra 


Burnett, John 
Gilroy, Mrs Linda 


Burstow, Paul 
Godman, Dr Norman A


Butler, Mrs Christine
Godsiff, Roger 


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Goggins, Paul 


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Golding, Mrs Llin 


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) 
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) 


Cann, Jamie 
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caplin, Ivor 
Grocott, Bruce 


Caton, Martin
Grogan, John 


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hain, Peter


Chaytor, David 
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David(S Shields) 
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet 


Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Harris, Dr Evan 



Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Healey, John


Clelland, David 
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clwyd, Ann 
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coaker,Vernon 
Hendrick, Mark


Coffey, Ms Ann 
Hepburn, Stephen


Cohen, Harry 
Hesford, Stephen 


Coleman, lain 
Hewitt, Ms Patricia 


Colman, Tony
Hinchliffe, David 


Connarty, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoey, Kate


Corbett, Robin 
Hope, Phil


Corbyn, Jeremy 
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corston, Jean 
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Cotter, Brian 
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr Kim





Hughes Ms Beverley (Stretfold)
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster. N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Humble, Mrs Joan 
Morley, Elliot


Hurst, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle(B'ham Yardley)


Hutton, John 



Iddon, Dr Brian 
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John(Aberavon)


Illsley, Eric



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mountford, Kali 


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mudie, George 


Jamieson, David 
Mullin. Chris


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)
Naysmith, Dr Doug



O'Hara, Eddie 


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Neill. Martin 


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Opik, Lembit 



Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardif) 
Palmer, Dr Nick 


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pearson, Ian 


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pickthall. Cohn


Joyce, Eric
Pike, Peter L 


Keeble, Ms Sally
Plaskitt, James 


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pond, Chris 


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pope, Greg 


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pound, Stephen


Khabra, Piara S 
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kidney, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn 


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Purchase, Ken


Kingham, Ms Tess
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kumar, Dr Ashok 
Quinn, Lawrie 


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lammy, David 
Rammell, Bill 


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Rapson, Syd 


Lepper, David 
Raynsford, Nick 


Levitt, Tom
Rendel, David 


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)



Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Linton, Martin 
Rogers, Allan


Livsey, Richard 
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


LIwyd, Elfyn 
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lock, David 
Rowlands, Ted


Love, Andrew 
 Roy,Frank


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruane, Chris 


McCabe, Steve 
Ruddock, Joan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain 
 Salter, Martin


Macdonald, Calum
Sanders, Adrian 


McDonnell, John 
Sarwar, Mohammad


McFall, John 
Savidge, Malcolm


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sedgemore, Brian


Mclsaac, Shona 
Sheerman, Barry


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary 
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mackinlay, Andrew
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWilliam, John 
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mallaber, Judy 
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter 
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Abd'ns)


Marshall, David (Shettleson)
Snape, Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Soley, Clive 


Maxton, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


Meale, Alan 
Spellar, John 


Merron, Gillian 
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew 
Stevenson. George 


Mitchell, Austin
Stinchcombe, Paul






Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Vaz, Keith


Stringer, Graham 
Walley, Ms. Joan


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Watts, David


Stunell, Andrew
Webb, Steve 


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
White, Brian



Whitehead, Dr Alan


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Plt Hon Alan(Swansea W)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Temple-Morris, Peter 
Williams,Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Willis, Phil


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Wills, Michael 


Timms, Stephen 
Winnick, David


Tipping, Paddy 
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Tonge,Dr Jenny
Woodward, Shaun


 Touhig, Don
Woolas,Phil


Trickett, Jon
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Neil (Wigan)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Tony McNulty and 


Tynan, Bill
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]:

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Jacqui Smith: There will be ample time for debate after I have spoken to the motion.

Hon. Members: Give way!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would appreciate it if hon. Members did not shout at the Minister; that is an instruction.

Jacqui Smith: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has shown no interest in the Bill up until now.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is not going to give way.

Jacqui Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have ample opportunity to make his points after I have finished.
We believe that the motion proposes ample time to consider a Bill of this size, whose principles are generally supported by Members on all sides of the House—even if some vote against them—and by voluntary organisations.
I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Boswell: My immediate reaction to that speech was, frankly, "Oh dear." I must confess a certain liking for the late Frankie Howerd, a fine comedian—particularly on television. Some of the more mature of our colleagues may remember him appearing in what might loosely be called the Roman follies. He always built up the case in the forum and then, at a certain point, he would turn aside, remember himself and say, "And now, the prologue." Tonight, it was, "And now, the programme motion."
Frankly, this would all be a farce—it has been treated as such by the Under-Secretary—if it were not so serious.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful that my hon. Friend gives way, when the Minister did not. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that this House should be asked to approve a programme motion on the basis that there will be enough time to consider the Bill in Committee, when we have not been told when the Committee will meet, how often it will meet or the total length of time for which it will meet?

Mr. Boswell: Not for the first time, I find myself entirely in sympathy with my right hon. and learned Friend. He may not have been able to attend the whole of the previous debate—I understand the reasons for that—so I remind him that I made an offer. I said that we might consider withdrawing our opposition on the reasoned amendment if the Government took away their absurd programme motion tonight.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way, as it was obvious that the Minister was not prepared to do so. Will there be enough time to clarify one aspect of the Bill? In part 3, clause 43(12) says:
Parts 2 and 3 do not extend to Northern Ireland.
By inference, one would suspect that part 1 does, yet I understood education to be a devolved matter in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Boswell: As I am no longer a Minister, I am not sure that I can give the hon. Member an authoritative and ministerial reply; the Minister clearly cannot. That point exemplifies the need for proper discussion of the Bill in a full Committee stage. That has nothing to do with subverting the Government, let alone subverting the intentions of the Bill, which may be admirable.

Mr. Clive Betts (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): They are.

Mr. Boswell: Lots of people have fine intentions. The Government Whip alarms me by suggesting that his intentions are entirely honourable.
Even if the intentions are good, there are still points to be raised. Sadly, tonight's motion—moved so peremptorily by the Under-Secretary—suggests that the

Government are exactly like the Bourbons; they have neither learned anything nor forgotten anything from recent events. Instead of adopting a wise course of action and taking on board the genuine sense of anger and grievance aroused by the Criminal Justice and Police Bill last week—it was almost a disaster—the Government have come back to the House all fresh faced as if nothing had happened. They pop up again as insouciant recidivists.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend said that the Criminal Justice and Police Bill was almost a disaster, but I am sorry that I must take issue with him. It was not almost a disaster, it was a disaster. There were 50 clauses that were not examined in Committee. If that is not a disaster for the people of this country, I do not know what is.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for that reproof. My characteristic moderation got the better of me, as ever.
The Government offer no time for debate because, in their book, only soundbites matter. The Bill does not matter to them. I may be old fashioned—and I am mortified that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not here tonight, as he would probably clash swords with me on the matter—but I think Bills are the core business of the House. We should debate them and get them right, but the Government persist in their belief that the Opposition are a nuisance to be crushed and not persuaded.
At all events, the only defence offered by the Government is that they will table no amendments in Committee. That is the triumph of hope over experience: I have never come across a Government who did not table amendments in Committee. If the Government have closed their mind to tabling amendments, it suggests that they will not take seriously what the Opposition have to say. I am sure till t they will say that, although they understand the objective behind half of the amendments that we put forward, the wording is defective or not in order. However, it is not sufficient for them to say in advance, "Sorry, no dice: we're not going to change a thing, whatever you say."

Mr. Paul Tyler: The Government have said that they will not table any amendments. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if it turns out that they do table amendments, it would be logical for the Government to extend the period covered by the programme motion?

Mr. Boswell: I agree. I cannot speculate on the conduct of the Committee, but we could find ourselves in a real dilemma. We would not want the Government to break one of their pledges. If they produced an amendment—even if it were a good one that I might wish I had devised myself—the Committee would have to decide whether to vote against it so as to fulfil the Government's pledge not to introduce any amendments.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that precedent suggests that to suppose that the Government will not table amendments to the Bill would represent a triumph of optimism over reality and a victory for complacency over common sense? Even if the apologists for mediocrity that pepper the Government Benches choose not to table amendments to the Bill, Conservative Members and other


hon. Members might choose to do so. Should not those amendments be deliberated on comprehensively, enthusiastically, in detail and, if necessary, at length?

Mr. Boswell: I am fond of my hon. Friend, not least because he is a constituency neighbour, and we share the same newspapers. His intervention was a triumph of clarity and alliteration. I regard him as a one-person walking amendment himself. It we were to fail in Committee, I am sure that he would be able to remedy any deficiencies in the Bill when it returns to the House for further consideration. However, I know other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall make progress.
We need to remember the genesis of the Bill. It was promised in the Gracious Speech of 1999. The Bill is a promise from the last century that only now the Government are seeking to honour. Earlier, the Bill was, sadly, dropped from the legislative process, allegedly because of delays in consultation. One wonders what occasioned those delays in consultation. A draft Bill was promised last summer, but we never saw it; then this Bill was introduced in another place.
The Government seem to faster the no doubt agreeable myth that because the Bill is not party politically contentious, it contains nothing to talk about. They seem to believe that the Bill is absolutely straightforward, designed by central casting and that it should immediately be accepted and nominated for an Oscar. However, the Bill needed detailed analysis in another place, and unless the Prime Minister decides to alter the timetable—no doubt for purposes other than saving the Bill or the embarrassment of his Ministers—I strongly believe that it requires proper consideration in this place. The two Houses are complementary, not alternative.
The proposal that we heard tonight from the Under-Secretary, albeit briefly, is entirely of a piece with earlier events. The first of many Bills that I have considered in Committee during this Parliament was the very first Finance Bill. Indeed, the hon. Lady also served on that Committee. The sentence in those days was five days on the trot, guillotined to midnight every night. That was not a very good way of doing business, but the Government have learned nothing from it.
We are being offered, in practice, four days of sittings. The Whip will seek to establish reasonableness, but first let me remind him about the Learning and Skills Bill, which was not without its contentious aspects. That Bill was introduced in another place. Conservative Members tabled a reasoned amendment on Second Reading in this place, and we then spent two months and more than 20 sittings considering the Bill. It was a longer Bill than this one. If the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), would like to make me a pro rata offer on the time required for this Bill, it would take us up to around 5 May, but I have not heard that offered so far.
A compressed timetable makes it impossible for organisations to consider the debates and the arguments put by Ministers and to lobby for changes. Indeed, in my experience, it is difficult for Ministers to brief themselves. I have always found that the most constructive dialogue on Bills is the one that no one ever hears—the part of the iceberg below the surface where Ministers are briefed by officials. They say, "What is he rabbiting on about that for?", or "Does he have a point about this?" All that will go by the board because the timetable will make this a simple exercise in speeding the Bill through the House.
It will be difficult for Back Benchers, and even Front Benchers, to meet any timetable of consecutive sittings. For example, I have certain obligations to my constituents, who are tearing their hair about the foot and mouth epidemic. I deal with a number of constituency cases every day. Frankly, even if we went into purdah for a fortnight, we would still have great difficulty in giving the Bill the consideration that the subject matter and its complexity require.
The situation is a perfect parable of new Labour. They care more for the soundbite than for sound sense. They would rather pursue another initiative than consider legislation sensibly. To them, dissent is the ultimate sin, yet we believe that democracy is about debate and debate will, from time to time, require consent.
In conclusion, the chances are that before too long—possibly even in conformity with the entirely inadequate timetable that the Government have set—democracy will speak, and I cannot wait. Those on the Treasury Bench may find that the boot is on the other foot. When we are in government, we will have to make sure that we do not abuse the trust that has been put in us.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Once again, I rise to oppose a timetable motion, as I found myself doing last night. It is about the eighth or ninth time that I have spoken in such debates, and I shall carry on intervening in them for as long as we have to consider these timetable motions.
The motion is wholly inappropriate for the Bill. It is substantial: 57 pages, 43 clauses and nine schedules. The idea that such a Bill can be rattled through in four consecutive sittings is for the birds—the proposition is absurd. Apparently, we are to have the Bill out of Committee by 5 April. There will be five hours maximum for Report—perhaps much less—and one hour for Third Reading. That is complete nonsense, of course
The House really must understand that in considering a Bill, it needs to perform at least two purposes. The first relates to policy and the second relates to the language in which that policy is framed. Both are equally important. I do not pretend to have followed the Bill with great particularity, so it may be that there is general agreement about the policy. That, however, is not conclusive of the issue.
We are, after all, talking about legislation. When we do that, we talk about burdens, obligations and penalties. We must ask what the authorities and the courts will make of legislation. The House must address those questions in the Standing Committee—that means proper scrutiny of the Bill.
The Committee has to undertake a further function which is not always recognised—the redress of grievances. In the context of any Bill—this one is no exception—particular cases, known to right hon. and hon. Members, may be highlighted. One of the ways hon. Members can do that is by tabling amendments directed at a particular grievance or abuse. If the Committee stage is so timetabled as to provide only four sittings, or whatever, hon. Members are prevented from pursuing their historical task—the redress of grievances.
We are told by the Government that they will not table amendments. I am prepared to accept that the Under-Secretary believes that as she stands at the Dispatch Box.


However, in my time I was responsible for the passage of 14 or 15 Bills through the House and I was never so imprudent as to say, "There are going to be no amendments". It is probable that someone—perhaps her legal advisers—will tell the Under-Secretary that she has got it wrong. If she does not table amendments in Committee, surely she will have to contemplate doing so on Report or she will be in considerable difficulty.
In any event, the idea that just because the hon. Lady does not want to table amendments the matter is concluded is arrogance of a high order. Many hon. Members may want to table amendments. Are we really to be told, on the say-so of some Under-Secretary, that we are to be shut out from that?

Mr. Boswell: My right hon. and learned Friend is a distinguished lawyer—I am not. Will he clarify, for my information, the importance of holding debates in Standing Committee? Since Pepper v. Hart, such debates may be taken into account by the courts in the interpretation of the intentions of legislation. Does that not presuppose that nice points and difficulties—for example, the application of section 316, or of 316A, on the provision of finance to independent special schools—need proper elucidation in Committee? That requires a Committee stage.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Under the ruling in Pepper v. Hart, the courts consider what is said in the House as an interpretation of a Bill's purpose. So it is important that in addressing the construction and interpretation of clauses, Ministers give themselves adequate time properly to explain what they mean, because those explanations are relevant to the interpretation subsequently put on the legislation. It is wrong artificially to compress the debate so that such interpretation cannot be given if requested.
All those are arguments against artificially compressing the debate in Committee, but the arguments against compressing the debate on Report are even more potent. We all know that but three or four Opposition Members will serve on the Committee; thus some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who wish to make a contribution will be unable to do so. Incidentally, it should be noted that the Opposition Benches are pretty densely populated tonight.

Mr. Bercow: Unlike the Government Benches.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right.
The first occasion when the whole House will have an opportunity to consider the Bill in detail is on Report. We have been told that five hours of debate will be sufficient, but there may be 30, 40 or 50 amendments in six, seven or eight groups. In the past few months during this Session, there have been countless occasions when Bills have passed that have been but partly discussed on Report. It is wrong that the debate on Report is so constructed that, in reality, Bills go undiscussed. We give those in the other place a role that they should not have.

Mr. Bercow: Of course what my right hon. and learned Friend says about the insufferable arrogance of the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Education

and Employment is beyond dispute among Conservative Members, but does he agree that it is entirely possible that, in the event of a statement after business questions on 5 April, we shall end up with under an hour to debate each clause? Is it not right that, even if few Members table amendments, every Member who wishes to contribute to the debate should have the opportunity to speak to the amendments?

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree.
May I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, perfectly rightly, Mr. Speaker allowed the discussion on today's foot and mouth disease statement, which was very important, to continue for an hour and 20 minutes? If there had been another statement of similar importance, about two hours or so would have been subtracted from the available time. That is simply not a proper way to address the manner in which the House conducts itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) also made an important point when he said that the process of compressing timetables shuts out external representation. He will have great difficulty in taking the opinion of outside interest groups as the Committee rattles through its consideration. Although I do not know whether this happens now in government, the Government will have difficulty in gathering the views of outside interests. Moreover, they will have difficulty in taking the views of their own officials.
I return to the plain fact that I have conducted through the House as many Bills as most Ministers have, and more than most, and I know that it is important to have regular and close briefings with officials to consider the points being made. The officials should not be shut out simply because the Government are rattling along. That would be very wrong indeed.

Mr. Bercow: The Ministers are chattering to each other.

Mr. Hogg: I am used to Ministers chattering to each other.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) should keep quiet when in a sedentary position.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend was helping me, and I am most grateful to him for doing so.
I want to make two further points. I am sorry to make a point that I have made on numerous previous occasions, but it goes to the root of parliamentary government. There is an implied bargain in a democracy between the electorate and Parliament. Parliament imposes obligations, liabilities and duties and requires the population as a whole to adhere to legislation. The electorate, in return, makes an assumption that the House properly performs its duties of scrutiny. If we are deprived of our ability to perform that duty, the elements in the bargain fail.
What happens when the public really begin to understand not just that the House is not performing its duty, but that it is being prevented from performing it? At that point the House and democracy itself will be seen to be a fraud. If we care about these things, we have to go on saying that it is the duty of the House properly to


scrutinise legislation. Those who prevent that and who chatter and giggle like little girls on the Front Bench are, in the end, denying democracy. Ultimately—thank God—they will be rumbled.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be brief. As I said in the debate on the programme motion last night, I am not in principle against programming. I want the House to use the time that is available to it to the very best advantage so that we ensure that the legislation that the Government of the day put through is properly scrutinised and that both sides of the House have an opportunity to participate in the debates.
Will the Under-Secretary, who moved the motion briefly, assure the House that, given the time that the Government have allocated to the Bill in Standing Committee, the Committee will have extra sittings if they are necessary? Will she assure us that the Government will not use their majority on the Committee to frustrate its having extra sittings that would be necessary to ensure that every part of the Bill is properly and fully discussed? Does the Minister wish to intervene to give that assurance to the House? I would be delighted to give way, but clearly she does not wish to intervene [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I say to the hon. Member for Buckingham that I have given him one warning and I do not expect to have to give him another We are trying to conduct a debate.

Mr. Winterton: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is not much hope of obtaining from the Minister a reply guaranteeing extra time to scrutinise the Bill? Last week, the Committee considering the International Development Bill was deprived of seven minutes of scrutiny time because of the inadvertent absence of the Chairman. When the Government and the Chair were asked to reinstate that time so that the Bill could be scrutinised for the full time stipulated in the programme motion, the request was denied. What hope is there that the Minister will grant my hon. Friend's reasonable request when such a denial was made last week?

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend, who is an experienced Member of the House, makes a point that I hope those on the Government Front Bench will have taken on board.
I am a member of the Modernisation Committee, which sits under the distinguished chairmanship of the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons. Since the Committee published its first report, which made the proposal for programming, the House has discovered that the programming structure that was proposed has not properly worked. If this Parliament sits long enough—I doubt that it will—there is no doubt that the Modernisation Committee will table amendments to the way we currently deal with business. I think that it would take on board the concerns that are felt by

Conservatives Members and shared by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who spoke eloquently and positively in the debate on the programme motion last night.
There is no doubt that hon. Members—including Labour Members who sometimes do not agree with aspects of the Government's policy—are not able to argue their case fully. Programme motions deny the House a proper opportunity to debate an issue. I have received many representations on special educational needs and disability, most of which I have passed on to the Minister. Those matters are of great importance to our constituents, especially to the parents of children who are affected by them. They are deeply worried.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to the Report stage. Newer Members of the House, including some Ministers, may not understand that that is the only time when all Members have an opportunity to participate in a debate on a Bill. That is not possible on Second Reading because of the limited time and many of them are not appointed to the Standing Committee. The real opportunity to debate issues that deeply concern them and their constituents is on Report.
My right hon. and learned Friend told us how many clauses and schedules the Bill contains. The Government should reconsider the five hours that they have allocated, in particular the time for debate on Report. The Bill is important to many people. I do not think that the Minister is unsympathetic to my request to have additional sittings if that is necessary.

Mr. David Winnick: Although I arrived in the Chamber only five minutes ago, I am aware of the issues. Although there is a case for programme motions, I agree that it is important for the Opposition to have time for scrutiny. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, prior to such motions, our late night sittings were not appreciated by the public? If there is a willingness in the new Parliament for the Government and Opposition to reach a compromise, it will be possible to have some programme motions and to give the Opposition what they want without sitting late into the night. I hope that the business of late night sittings has gone for good.

Mr. Winterton: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because I greatly respect his role and his immense experience in this place. Had he arrived at the beginning of my speech, he would have heard me say that, in principle, I am not against programming. In fact, I am in favour of it and want it to work. The House should use its time to the very best effect so that legislation is fully discussed. He has opposed some of his Government's policies and must realise that Opposition and Labour Members should have an opportunity to have a say on important Bills. We are old hands. He knows that we are sent here not to speed legislation on its way, but to ensure that it meets people's needs and is properly scrutinised.
The Minister has been effective in the four years that she has been in the House. She must appreciate the Opposition's valuable role as part of our democratic process. Although she has not responded to my challenge, I note that she indicated from a sedentary position that the Standing Committee could have additional sittings. Perhaps the Government will consider allocating


additional time for the Report stage, which is the only time when all Back Benchers have a chance to participate in debates on important legislation.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I agree with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), except for his opening observation. My hon. Friend is extraordinarily sanguine in supposing that if the Government found in Committee that more time were needed to debate a clause or the whole Bill, they would ever have the slightest inclination to return to the House and change their programme motion to allow the Committee more time. I would literally eat my hat if the Government ever did such a thing.
We now come here night after night to debate these programme motions, and it is the most extraordinary state of affairs. It is now considered quite natural that the Government, who after all have a responsibility for drafting legislation and presenting it to Parliament, should systematically feel that they are able to assume in advance how long Parliament will take to do its share of the legislative work in examining a Bill. That is a fundamental contradiction. There should be a balance between the role of the Executive and that of the legislature—the Executive proposing and the legislature deliberating and agreeing or otherwise. The way in which the Government are conducting these matters with their enormous majority makes it obvious that they do not accept that.
The arguments this evening and on other occasions amount simply to the Government saying, "We can predict exactly what will happen in Committee and on Report. You have no surprises for us." There is a logical slippage into the next position, which is to say, "The parliamentary stage is a complete waste of time. It is just a ritual and a nuisance for us and it makes not the slightest difference to the legislation." To act in this way is not only to treat Parliament with contempt"—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said in an extremely powerful speech, it is to treat the wider public with contempt, because their one opportunity to influence legislation is through Parliament. We are but the mouthpieces of those who send us here.
Back Benchers on a Committee play an important role in listening to representations from individuals or groups outside the House who may be affected by the legislation in question or who may be taking an entirely disinterested view of its consequences. Having considered the merits of those representations, Members must decide whether to take them up, perhaps in the form of amendments. That process, by definition, cannot be predicted in advance. The Government, by saying high-handedly that they know in advance how long proceedings will take, are essentially saying that no such process exists and that they are not open to representations made by the wider public. The Government are treating the whole country with contempt. This is an extremely worrying process because it is not far to the end of the road, which is saying that legislation is what the Government draft and nothing else. By definition, we will then have legislative despotism. I am not using hyperbole. This is government by fear, by

bureaucracy and by Ministers for the four or five years for which the Government have a majority in the House and can continue to govern the country.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not because we have little time left for the debate. I hope that he will recognise that that is not my fault, and will make representations to his Front-Bench colleagues.
That is the direction in which the House is moving as the 21st century opens, and it is extremely worrying. At the moment, we speak entirely impotently, and the Government laugh at us and pay no attention at all. The two Ministers here this evening have studiously avoided listening to a single word that has been said on the subject by anybody during the debate. First, they may be personally embarrassed to hear the strictures of Conservative Members. Secondly, they know that those strictures do not matter anyway, because they trust their cannon fodder on the Back Benches to go into the Lobbies after the debate and override all those considerations and ensure that no account is taken of them. That is the situation that we face, and if the public seriously want it to continue, and seriously want to go further down the road that I have just described, they will soon have the opportunity to take that decision. I do not believe that they will take that road.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I have not participated in one of these programme motion debates before. I come to the debate as a member of the all-party Select Committee on Education and Employment, which has reached consensus on the issue of special educational needs. It is a mystery to me that there is a need for any sort of programme motion when, broadly speaking, there is consensus about the need for new legislation and about the direction that policy is taking. Surely—given the enthusiasm and support that the Bill should be generating outside the House—the Government would not need a programme motion if they were confident about the Bill.
The conclusion that we must draw from the fact that we have a programme motion is that the Government are far from confident about the validity and strength of the Bill. They are far from confident that the Bill is free from the kind of flaws from which the Opposition fear it suffers. Indeed, we are not the only ones who fear the effects of the mistakes that the Government have made in the drafting of the Bill. I have received a letter from the National Union of Teachers, stating that the union has "particular concerns" about the Bill. I have also received a letter from the National Association of Head Teachers, stating:
We do have reservations … We hope that the Bill will not lead to a headlong rush".
We are worried that we are being led into a headlong rush by Ministers under this procedure.
In our experience, it is a far better approach to give a Bill such as this plenty of time to mature in Committee. I have known cases, on previous education Bills, of unions saying that they had not realised how the Bill would affect their representatives until it was in Committee. We wanted to table amendments but found that, because of the programme motions that were in place, it was too late to do so. Here we have a case of a Bill starting in another place. The Conservative spokesman there, Baroness Blatch, was most prescient in her comments. She said that she feared that the Bill would be:
severely guillotined in another place. We know that the plan in another place is for the Bill to be shoved through in a day."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 20 February 2001; Vol. 622, c. 774]
She might well have said "in a day", because we do not even have a day's worth of time in which to debate the Bill in Committee.
Furthermore, in another place, the Committee met in the Moses Room, where procedure dictates that there shall be no Divisions. Anything remotely contentious could not, therefore, be put to a vote in another place, whereas in this House, there will not be time to put such matters to a vote. That is an example of how the Government are grossly distorting the role of the House, and denying us from acting in accordance with the sense of responsibility that we all feel towards our constituents to deliver a decent Bill for those with special educational needs.
That is why we must oppose the programme motion. That is also why those on the other side of the House who really care about special educational needs—

It being forty-five minutes after that commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000] .

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 122.

Division No. 161]
[10.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ainger, Nick
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Browne, Desmond


Allen, Graham
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Burden, Richard



Burgon, Colin


Armstrong, At Hon Ms Hilary
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ashton, Joe
Campbell,Alan (Tynemouth)


Bailey, Adrian
Campbell,Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bayley, Hugh
Cann, Jamie


Beckett, At Hon Mrs Margaret
Caplin, Ivor


Begg, Miss Anne
Caton, Martin


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Chaytor, David


Benn, At Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clapham, Michael


Benton, Joe
Clark, At Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Berry, Roger



Betts, Clive
Clelland, David


Blackman, Liz
Clwyd, Ann


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coaker, Vermon


Blizzard, Bob
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blunkett, At Hon David
Cohen, Harry


Boateng, At Hon Paul
Coleman,Iain


Borrow, David
Colman, Tony


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Connarty, Michael





Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, At Hon Barry (Alyn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)


Crausby, David



Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cunningham, At Hon Dr Jack(Copeland)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)



Jowell, At Hon Ms Tessa


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Joyce, Eric


Davidson, Ian
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davies, At Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davis, At Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)



Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dawson, Hilton
Khabra, Piara S


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kidney, David


Denham, Rt Hon John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dismore, Andrew
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Donohoe, Brian H
Ladyman. Dr Stephen


Doran, Frank
Lammy, David


Dowd, Jim
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Drew, David
Laxton, Bob


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lepper, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Levitt, Tom


Edwards. Huw
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Ennis, Jeff
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Fisher, Mark
Linton, Martin


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Flint, Caroline
Lock, David


Flynn, Paul
Love, Andrew


Foster, R Hon Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian(Makerfield)


Foulkes, George



Galloway, George
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gerrard, Neil
Macdonald, Calum


Gibson, Dr Ian
McDonnell, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McFall, John


Godsiff, Roger
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Goggins, Paul
Mclsaac, Shona


Golding, Mrs Llin
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grogan, John
McWilliam, John


Hain, Peter
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mallaber, Judy


Hanson, David
Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter


Healey, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hendrick, Mark
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Maxton, John


Heppell, John
Meale, Alan


Hesford, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Hinchliffe, David
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hope, Phil
Miller, Andrew


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moffatt, Laura


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morley. Elliot


Howells, Dr Kim
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle(B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John(Aberavon)


Humble, Mrs Joan



Hurst, Alan
Mountford, Kali


Hutton, John
Mudie, George


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mullin, Chris


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jamieson, David
Naysmith. Dr Doug


Jenkins, Brian
O'Hara, Eddie


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Haffield)
O'Neill, Martin



Osborne, Ms Sandra






Palmer, Dr Nick
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pearson. Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Perham, Ms Linda
Stevenson, George


Pickthall, Colin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pike, Peter L
Stinchcombe, Paul


Plaskitt, James
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pond, Chris
Stringer, Graham


Pope, Greg
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Primarolo, Dawn
Temple-Morris, Peter


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Quinn, Lawrie
Timms, Stephen


Rammell, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


Rapson, Syd
Todd, Mark


Raynsford, Nick
Touhig, Don


Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)
Trickett, Jon



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rowlands, Ted
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roy Frank
Tynan, Bill


Ruane, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Ruddock, Joan
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Watts, David


Ryan, Ms Joan
White, Brian


Salter, Martin
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sarwar, Mohammad
Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)


Savidge, Malcolm



Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Skinner, Dennis
Wills, Michael


Smith, At Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Winnick, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Woodward, Shaun


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Woolas, Phil


Snape, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Southworth, Ms Helen



Spellar, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Ms Rachel
Mr. Tony McNulty and



Mr.Gerry Sutcliffe


NOES


Amess, David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Evans, Nigel


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Flight, Howard


Beggs, Roy
Forth, At Hon Eric


Bercow, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Blunt, Crispin
Fox, Dr Liam


Boswell, Tim
Fraser, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Garnier, Edward


Brady, Graham
Gibb, Nick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burns, Simon
Gray, James


Butterfill, John
Green, Damian


Cash, William
Grieve, Dominic


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie



Hammond, Philip


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Nick


Clappison, James
Hayes, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Heald, Oliver


Cran, James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemptice)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)





Lansley, Andrew
Ruffley, David


Letwin, Oliver
St Aubyn, Nick


Lidington, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shepherd, Richard


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Loughton, Tim
Spicer, Sir Michael


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


McCrea, Dr William
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Swayne, Desmond


Madel, Sir David
Syms, Robert


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Maples, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


May, Mrs Theresa
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Moss, Malcolm 
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Norman, Archie
Tyrie, Andrew


Ottaway, Richard
Walter, Robert



Waterson, Nigel


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Paisley, Rev Ian
Whittingdale, John


Paterson, Owen
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Pickles, Eric
Wilkinson, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Prior, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Randall, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew



Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the following, provisions shall apply to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]

Standing Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day it meets.

3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 5th April.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.

6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Lords messages

7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

The programme motion proposes that the Standing Committee he brought to a conclusion on 5 April. We consider that to be a reasonable time, and we hope that the motion meets the Opposition's reasonable expectations. Although the exact time in Committee will of course depend on the Programming Sub-Committee, I can say that the Government do not intend to table further amendments to the Bill. Even Conservative Members will agree that the programme proposed should give ample time to consider a Bill of this size—43 clauses and eight schedules.

Standing Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day it meets.

3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 5th April.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.

5 Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.

6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Lords messages

7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND DISABILITY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act —[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to

Church of England (General Synod) (Measure):

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Churchwardens Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
Although the Measure is important for the life of the Church, I hope to introduce it fairly briefly. I should like to do so partly because of the lateness of the hour, and partly because I can assure the House that although concerns were expressed about a provision that was previously included in the Measure—I shall say more about that in a moment—it has now been deleted and the Ecclesiastical Committee has reported that the Measure is expedient in its present form.
The Measure contains a comprehensive set of rules about the appointment of churchwardens and their tenure of office. The office of churchwarden is an ancient and honourable one. I understand that it dates back to the early 12th century. but it is still very much alive. Churchwardens play a vital part in the life of the Church of England in parishes throughout the country. That is why the General Synod decided to remove some of the problems that had arisen in relation to the existing law, which was set out in a 1964 Measure. For example. the procedure in cases involving contested election for the office was not as clear as it should have been, and was therefore capable of causing a great deal of hurt and division among loyal church members.
The new Measure seeks to rectify that problem by providing a carefully thought-out and much clearer procedure. However, the choice of the churchwardens of the parish has never been a matter solely for the parish priest, minister or regular churchgoers. Everyone who is resident in a parish and whose name is on the register of local government electors is a parishioner and is entitled to take part. That principle is part of the unique relationship between Church and state in this country, and it is preserved by the Measure.
That provision, and almost all the others contained in the Measure—hon. Members will see that there are 16 clauses—cause no controversy. The one matter that caused particular concern when the Measure came before the General Synod was the principle that a churchwarden should serve without a break for only six years. That was included in the Measure because parishes and dioceses had asked for it. In some cases, however excellent the churchwardens, parishioners feel that it is time to give someone else an opportunity to serve, but find it difficult to say so tactfully and without hurting any feelings.
Other parishes have pointed out, however, that the office of churchwarden is onerous. In rural and inner-city parishes, often only a very limited number of people are willing and able to carry out the duties involved. There may be other reasons why a churchwarden should serve for more than six years. For example, the parish could be in a position in which experienced churchwardens are essential to keeping the show on the road. That is why the Synod decided that, although the rule about six-years' service should be the norm, it should be possible for the


parishioners of any parish to decide for any reason that that rule should not apply to them, with the freedom to change their minds later if they want to do so. Thus, the parish will remain in control, which is how the Synod agreed it should be. In any case, the six years would not start to run until the Measure came into force, so there would be ample time for every parish to make up its mind.
The issue that caused the Ecclesiastical Committee a great deal of concern was different—namely, the power that the original Measure would have given to the bishops to suspend a churchwarden from exercising his or her duties. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have received correspondence about that, and the Ecclesiastical Committee and the Synod have spent a great deal of time considering the matter.
All I need say tonight is that, first, the power was not included in the Measure at the request of the bishops. The bishops and everyone else in the Synod always anticipated that it would be used only on rare occasions. Secondly, there was a great deal of anxiety, which was strongly expressed in the Ecclesiastical Committee, that the power could he used in a way that would override the rights of the parishioners and be unfair to the churchwarden.
In the light of the Ecclesiastical Committee's concerns, the Synod finally decided to delete the power from the Measure in the hope that it would proceed without further controversy. I can therefore assure right hon. and hon. Members who have received anxious letters about the power of suspension that there is no trace of it in the Measure before the House.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not true that, had the power not been withdrawn, the Ecclesiastical Committee would almost certainly not have found the Measure expedient and would not have approved its coming before the House and the other place?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He knows that the role of the Ecclesiastical Committee in the established Church and the relationship between Church and state were amply discussed at the time. The Ecclesiastical Committee, representing the House in the other place, rendered a signal service on behalf of parishioners.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I say, with all humility, that the Ecclesiastical Committee may have been wrong? The Committee and the House ought to say to the Synod, "We are very grateful for your tolerance of the fact that we took a view that may or may not have been right."

Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman put that view forcefully in the Ecclesiastical Committee, and I was grateful that he did so. It might have been useful in particular circumstances for the bishop to have power over a churchwarden, but the overwhelming feeling in the Committee and among parishioners was that giving an unelected bishop power over an elected churchwarden would not be successful. The consequence was that the matter returned to the Synod, which gracefully yielded on that particular point, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. Therefore, the Measure is before the House.

Mr. James Gray: I was one of those who lobbied long and hard, partly on behalf of my wife,

who is a churchwarden and is worried about the Measure. I am concerned to read clause 10(1)(e), which states that the bishop shall have power:
in any case in which any difficulty arises, to give any directions which he may consider expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulty.
Can the hon. Gentleman advise us what that difficulty might be and what the bishop might have to do to remove it should it arise?

Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman draws my attention to a particular clause, and I thank him for being so alert so late in the evening I cannot give him the answer he requires, so I shall write to him. If my response is of sufficient importance, I shall put a copy in the Library so that those Members who are not here tonight can rush to the Library to read it in due course. I assure right hon. and hon. Members .who received letters on the power of suspension that there is no trace of that in the Measure before the House.
I hope that the House will pass this Measure, and that the other place will be content, so that it can pass into law in the near future. I However, Church authorities are well aware that parishes are about to hold their annual election of churchwardens. Indeed, a few have already done so. It would not be right to introduce the new rules at short notice in the middle of that process without giving parishes time to absorb them. Because of that, those who are responsible for advising the archbishops on when to exercise their power under clause 16(2) to bring the measure into force do not propose to do so until after the present annual round of meetings to choose churchwardens is over. It is equally important that those who will draw up guidance on the new rules for the parishes should be able to begin work as soon as possible. I urge the House to approve the Measure and to support the motion.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I declare an interest, or at least, a potential interest, as I am a deputy churchwarden by virtue of the fact that my parish has more than one parish church. Should I still be in that post when the Measure comes into effect, I may become a full-blown churchwarden and subject to its provisions.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) has set out fully the circumstances behind the Measure, and I do not wish to detain the House, save to say that it is welcome. Particularly welcome is the flexibility that has been shown in response to numerous letters that were received about removing the bishop's right relating to suspension.
I noted with interest what my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) said. He was unsure whether the Committee had acted properly in this matter, or had come to the right decision. The Church is undoubtedly going through considerable changes. In particular, an increasing number of parishes are held by priests in charge, not by incumbents. Many parishes and parishioners feel that their independence is being progressively eroded.
I am quite convinced that, in the Measure's original form, the power of the bishop would have been invoked so sparingly and for such good and sufficient reasons that no one would ever hive criticised its use. However, it was:


received with hostility and awoke a sense of unease that the independence of parishes, which had previously been exemplified in the independence of the incumbent, was disappearing and that this Measure w as yet another nail in the coffin.

Mr. David Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems was the Synod's apparent inability to communicate exactly why it wanted the Measure? In my diocese, my parochial church council never once discussed this issue. People picked up innuendo and rumour.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman's comments sound familiar—I remember the discussion that we had in my parish. He highlights a matter that is for the Church to decide for itself. Many parishes tend to be rather detached from the process of governance in the Church. Beyond deanery Synod level, there is often a sense that what goes on has little relevance. People worry that higher powers constantly want to change accepted practices that work well for them.
The proposal seems sensible and has provided reassurance. Clearly, this Measure was badly needed. It clarifies many areas, and should beneficial. After all, if it turns out that a mistake was made—as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West suggests—and examples suddenly reach the tabloid press of churchwardens hideously misusing their office and bishops in a frenzy of anxiety that they can do nothing about it, I dare say that this matter will come back before the Synod, and probably before the House. Chances are, however, that the Measure will be invoked so rarely anyway that we may well succeed in lasting a century or two more without having to revisit it.
I am happy to welcome the Measure.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thank churchwardens throughout the Church of England for the way in which they fulfil their responsibilities. They are generally unthanked; they are unpaid; they have immense burdens to bear; and, almost without exception, they carry out their duties with fervour—if that is a proper term to use in a religious context—and with a great deal of practical common sense.
We are grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for the way in which he represents the authority of the established Church in the House, and for the good humour with which—

Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bottomley: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to contradict what I am saying about his hon. Friend. I want to complete my tribute: I live in fear that I may at some stage be asked to carry out the responsibilities currently undertaken by his hon. Friend—in which event I would certainly say no, because I do not think I am half the person he is.
Now I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman care to include in his tribute to churchwardens throughout the land—I

declare an interest, as one of them—recognition of the increasing burden that they carry as a result of the greater number of longer interregnums that we have seen in Anglican parishes throughout the land?

Mr. Bottomley: I agree that there are difficulties. One way of approaching them is by recognising the non-stipendiary ministry.
I also think that perhaps the Church of England should copy what I believe to be the practice of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in Ireland. Many more people find and fulfil vocations by going into that Church as ordained priests or vicars when they are older. The idea that people should start training for ordination immediately after obtaining a theology degree implies a bias that is not necessarily justified. I believe that many people who had previously been police officers, teachers or social workers, or had worked in business, would be welcomed into the ministry.
I hope that we can reach a point at which bishops do not feel the need to "rotate" people around their parishes, planning a six-to-nine-month interregnum. That can destabilise both the families of incumbents and the parishes that those incumbents serve.
As has been said, the Measure is basically uncontroversial. I shall not dwell on the fuss about the parts that have now gone. If I ever wrote my memoirs it would make an interesting chapter, but for reasons of parliamentary as well as religious charity I think it best to leave aside my view on the collection of interests—most opposed to each other—that combined to make it expedient for the Synod, very kindly, to drop those sections.
I think the analysis given by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) of the number of times when the power involved would have been needed is slender. I trust that any churchwardens who fell into the category—hopefully as a result of error rather than on purpose—in which the power might have been useful would do the honourable thing and suspend themselves. In most cases, if there is a problem, churchwardens know their duty perfectly well and will fulfil it: they will park themselves while the matter is being resolved. I hope that, on the rare occasions on which they attempted to do otherwise, they would follow advice and do what might otherwise have been compulsory.
Finally, let me make a more general point. Although I agree with Robert Runcie, who said that using the Synod for the earlier stages of parliamentary Measures was not entirely satisfactory, it is probably more satisfactory than a system involving the two Houses dealing with Second Reading, Committee stage and Report. In practice, the Ecclesiastical Committee must bring a Measure that has gone through its earlier stages in the Synod to the House of Commons for what is, in effect, Third Reading. That is surely a better system than one involving fighting the whole thing through from the beginning. I hope that we can reach a stage at which those who might be described as traditionalists—I am not a traditionalist; I am more of an inclusive Christian and member of the Church of England—

Mr. Drew: An Anglo-Catholic.

Mr. Bottomley: I shall accept any compliment or criticism. However, I believe that the arrangements are better now than they were before the Synod dealt with the earlier stages.
Last week, in St. Margaret's, the Archbishop of Canterbury installed the new worldwide president of the Mothers Union. I wish that all hon. Members had been able to see how another part of the Church of England—not only from the United Kingdom, but from around the world—was able to come together in recognising the contribution of many people in our churches. Those people understand that the Church realises that it has a vibrant and responsible role to play, and that it plays that role with a fervour that could be commended to many people who are outside our churches.
I would like people outside our churches to know that, if they come to our churches, not only the churchwardens—or the Mothers Union, of which I am proud to be a member—will welcome them, but all the people in the pews will say, "There is plenty of room for more people here. You do not have to be particularly good to be a member of the Church of England."

Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like first to apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) that I was not in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate, as I was attending an event in my constituency. However, I have followed the story of the Measure—

Mr. Drew: The saga.

Mr. Hughes: Yes. As I have followed it for many years, I think that I am as well aware as anyone of the arguments and the history.
I join colleagues on both sides of the House in paying tribute to churchwardens. I specifically endorse the additional reason for paying tribute to them mentioned by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor). The Church of England now has longer interregnums between incumbencies, not least to save money, and churchwardens effectively take responsibility for running the entire parish for quite long periods. Therefore, they perform not only all their other duties, but that extremely responsible work. The work certainly has its burdens, but it is very well done, and I think that all hon. Members respect churchwardens for doing it.
This Measure is the most controversial one that the Ecclesiastical Committee has considered perhaps in the 18 years in which I have been an hon. Member, but certainly in all the time that I have been a member of the Committee. Although there was controversy in our debates on the ordination of women Measure—which was the other big Measure that the Committee has considered—and the Legislative Committee invited the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York to meet us to discuss it, ultimately there was agreement on it between the Ecclesiastical Committee and the General Synod. We went through all those procedures on the Churchwardens Measure, but we still could agree on it.
As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has said, and as hon. Members will be aware, through its representatives on the Ecclesiastical Committee this place took a view on the Churchwardens Measure, and I believe that we were right to do so. As the right hon. Member for

Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has often reminded the House, for as long as the United Kingdom constitution requires Parliament to have a say in Church of England matters—how long that arrangement should continue is a different debate—we have above all one job to do: to ensure that the normal principles of justice and fair treatment that apply in civic society apply also within the Church.
The Ecclesiastical Committee absolutely rightly said to the Church, "The powers that you were originally proposing to give to bishops to suspend people from office when they were under suspicion but nothing has been proven are not powers that should reside in bishops." We said that because of the simple premise on which churchwardens' authority rests. They are not only a bishop's appointees but the people's choice. It is a very unusual position. Churchwardens have two masters—the people and the bishop. The Committee, which is composed almost entirely of lay people, made it clear that we wanted the principles of justice to apply in the Church as they apply in civil society. I am sure that we were right, and it is a good thing that the Church of England General Synod gave in to that.
There is for another day—perhaps another Parliament—the debate about whether it is right for us to go on in the new century with the present relationship. I have made my position clear. I speak for the Liberal Democrats on Church of England matters, and I am happy to do so. By baptism and confirmation, I am a member of the Anglican Church; coincidentally, I was confirmed into the Church in Wales. l believe in disestablishment, as does my party. We think that, as soon as it can happen, we should disestablish the Church of England, just as the Church in Wales has been disestablished, the Church in Ireland has been disestablished and—in a different way—the Anglican Church in Scotland has been partly disestablished.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman is trying to widen this debate. However, while we have the present system, the Ecclesiastical Committee in this House cannot just be a rubber stamp. If the Committee has a role to play, it must do it properly, as it has tried to do with this Measure.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman—who is also a friend of mine—and others who have played an entirely consistent, effective and observant role in the Committee over many years have always taken that view. For the time being, we have an established Church and certain matters have to come to Parliament. We will do our job properly for as long as that is the position.
Other colleagues may make a self-denying ordinance not to take part in such debates. They are entitled to do so; it is the same issue as whether one takes part in Scottish business if one is an English Member, or vice versa. Constitutionally, every Member of Parliament has a role. Nobody has to serve on the Ecclesiastical Committee, but those of us from both Houses who do serve on it take our job extremely seriously. Those who serve us as officers have always been extremely diligent. Those who come from the Church of England to brief us and to answer questions have been always been extremely courteous and entirely helpful in trying to deal with our concerns.
It is still worth reminding people that churchwardens are chosen annually by the parish meeting, but all parishioners are entitled to vote for them. One of the


things that still troubles me is that most churches do not invite all parishioners to choose their churchwardens. This is not just a token matter. There are many people who will admit to coming to church only on Christmas eve, for the carol service or for baptisms, marriages or funerals. One of the jobs of the Church of England—if it is to be the national Church—is to be available for people without lots of preconditions; for example, someone should not have to turn up so many limes over so many weeks to take part.
One of the ways in which the Church of England can continue its links into each parish in the country is to make sure that everybody knows that, once a year, there is a meeting to which all parishioners can come. They do not have to have darkened the doors of the church between meetings and they will not be judged on their attendance, or on other things—it is their church. I would hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough can pass on to those in charge of the Church that they should make it their business to make sure it is not just the people on the electoral roll of the church or the normal congregation of the church who are invited to the meeting.
All adult parishioners should be told about the annual meeting, and invited to take part in the election of the people to represent the parish. I hope that we can get to that point because, at the moment, some churches find it more comfortable only to invite their own to the meeting. There is a great opportunity here, rot just in terms of democracy but in terms of evangelisation and outreach from the church to the people.

Mr. David Taylor: Many church electoral rolls contain the names of people who live outside the parish. Would the hon. Gentleman expect that a by product of a future move to disestablish the Church would be to remove what many see as an antiquated right for parishioners in general to contribute towards the selection of churchwardens?

Mr. Hughes: I do not want to get waylaid, but the debate is about churchwardens so the question is proper. The role of parish representatives in the Church would not continue after full disestablishment, but two sorts of disestablishment are on the table, in effect. One centres on whether members of the Church of England can be in Parliament, whether bishops should be in the House of Lords and whether the Prime Minister should appoint the bishops. In that model, there is an argument about whether the monarch should be both head of the Church and the head of state. The other sort of disestablishment centres on the arrangement of the parish structure. Disestablishment from Parliament—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, who came late to the debate, is being extraordinarily discursive.

Mr. Hughes: I give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).

Mr. Grieve: I do not want to widen the point, but it would place a considerable burden on parishes if they had to advertise their annual meeting as the hon. Gentleman proposes. In the parish where I worship, it is clearly stated on public notices that everyone can come to the meeting

and vote. The meeting is split into two parts for that purpose. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that his proposal is unrealistic in terms of cost?

Mr. Hughes: Any good parish communicates with all its parishioners on a regular basis. The message will therefore get pushed through doors and pinned on the notice boards in church and throughout the parish at no unusual or additional cost. Good churches tell people what is going on, and I hope that every Church of England church would want to do that and find the necessary resources.
There is unity on the issue because the Church accepted the advice of Parliament. The relationship therefore works, and the Measure will put churchwardens' relationship with the Church on a firmer and better footing. They, and we, will be grateful for that.

Mr. Stuart Bell: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to some of the points that have been made.
I shall begin by thanking the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for his contribution. I shall follow your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and avoid the intricacies and interstices of the disestablishment argument: I hope that we will have that debate in the not-too-distant future.
The hon. Gentleman was right about the controversy surrounding the Measure, but, in the end, Church and state came together in the proper fashion. The House, in the shape of the Ecclesiastical Committee, exercised its judgment and responded to the concerns of churchwardens and parishioners. An expression of will went back to the Synod, which was sufficiently flexible and understanding to accept that the power of the bishops should be removed from the Measure.
The hon. Members for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey both referred to the role of churchwardens, and commended the people who do such a sterling job up and down the land. The House will know that Canon El provides that churchwardens are to be the officers of the bishop, and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made the point about their dual capacity. It also states that they are to be foremost in representing the laity and co-operating with the incumbent. It states that they:
shall use their best endeavours by example and precept to encourage the parishioners in the practice of true religion and to promote unity and peace among them".
That shows the importance and significance of the role of the churchwarden. As the hon. Member for Worthing, West said, the nature of the sort of people who take on the role of churchwarden means that they might well step aside if a difficulty arose.
In a very important intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) pointed out that this House and the Ecclesiastical Committee are not rubber stamps and never can be in relation to the legislation that comes from the Synod on to the statute book via proceedings here.
I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) for his graceful encapsulation of what the Measure contains, for sharing with us his experiences as a


churchwarden and for his support for the Measure. It is important that when the House deals with Church matters it reaches a consensus, without the sort of hostility and controversy seen elsewhere, so I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support.
The hon. Member for Worthing, West was extremely helpful in the Ecclesiastical Committee. His was a lone voice, sometimes, but he articulated a view that others might well have held. He was very graceful in his comments about me, and I am grateful to him for that. When I took on the role of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Lord Dixon said that I was the Church's shop steward. As a fellow trade unionist, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand and appreciate that.
The hon. Gentleman said that he might write his memoirs one of these days and that there would be a chapter dealing with the Churchwardens Measure. He might, in the meantime, like to read "The Churchwarden's Handbook—A Practical Guide", written by Ven. Ian Russell, recently retired as the Archdeacon of Coventry, who was a member of the steering committee on churchwardens. The book has been so popular that the first edition has sold out. The second edition will remove the contentious issue of whether the bishops should have power over a churchwarden. It reads rather like a Jeffrey Archer novel, with the ending changed according to the audience.

Mr. David Taylor: Will the author be sent to prison?

Mr. Bell: We will not go into that particular controversy.
If the hon. Member for Worthing, West does get around to writing his memoirs, the practical guide to churchwardens will be a very sound base.
I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Churchwardens Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

That the draft Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Order 2001. which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

POSTAL SERVICES

That the draft Postal Services Act 2000 (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

That the draft Postal Services Act 2000 (Consequential Modifications No. 1) 0rder 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS

That the draft Defence Aviation Repair Agency Trading Fund Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]

Question agreed to.

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:

Line 31, at end add—

() The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.

() The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.

() The quorum of the sub-committee shall he three.'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],

That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.—[Mr. Betts.].

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:

Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 52, at the end insert the words:—

'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Hon. Members: Object.

South London Rail Services (GoVia)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity for this debate on train services in the south of London. The Minister has expressed some surprise that we should be having yet another debate on this subject, but I assure him that things have moved on since the last debate a couple of months ago.
A new start for the south central rail franchise is very welcome. I am afraid that services have deteriorated over the past year. As we have had many debates on Connex South Central services, I do not think that it will be necessary to go over this old and rather stony ground again. However, a recent survey that I conducted at stations in my constituency shows that a substantial majority of respondents—no less than 78 per cent.—feel that services have deteriorated over the past year. No one who responded said that they had improved. This is the scale of the challenge faced by GoVia.
Before I discuss GoVia's proposals, I should like to know what efforts the Government are making to ensure that standards are maintained on existing services to stop further slippage. I draw the Minister's attention to one area of innovation—that of colourful excuses.
One of my constituents contacted Connex to ask why his train had been delayed, and was informed, in an e-mail, that a pheasant had been caught in the shoe gear of the train. That is certainly a radical departure from leaves on the line or the wrong kind of snow. Perhaps pheasants being caught in the shoe gear is a common problem in rural areas, but it is certainly not usual in urban areas.
Not all the problems of the train service are the sole responsibility of Connex—the current operator. Since privatisation, people have experienced horrendous problems with rail services everywhere—partly due to privatisation itself but also because of previous underinvestment in the rail infrastructure.
Local rail users want change and they want it soon, so a rapid and clean transition of the franchise from Connex to GoVia is desirable. If the Minister has any information as to when that transition might finally take place, I should welcome it. Such information will be of considerable interest to my constituents.
However, just because a franchise is being passed to a new company does not mean that my constituents or I will accept that any change is a change for the better. Recent public meetings in my constituency show that local commuters are extremely concerned about what will happen to their rail services. I should point out that GoVia was extremely co-operative in sending representatives to those meetings. To ensure that rail users get the service they deserve, it is important that the company keeps open the lines of communication to their customers to ensure that they remain part of the process. I am grateful to GoVia for that continued co-operation.
Unfortunately, my constituents are concerned about one particular change proposed by GoVia; I shall refer to that shortly. Many of GoVia's proposals are welcome. Over the 20-year franchise, the investment programme is

valued at £1.5 billion. That planned investment includes £900 million for rolling stock; £325 million for infrastructure; £200 million for stations; and £50 million for depots.
There have also been encouraging signs in response to the 10-point plan proposed to GoVia by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and me. The plan is based on key concerns raised by our constituents and was the subject of a previous debate. GoVia has addressed seven of those 10 points and has expressed general enthusiasm for the plan.
I should still like solid progress to be made on three of those points. First, there should be a guarantee of clean trains and stations. Secondly, a plan should be published and displayed in stations, setting out the major works to be undertaken in the area and the date of their completion—so that when passengers suffer disruption, they can see a light at the end of the tunnel and know that there will be a solution at a given date. Finally, opportunities should be investigated for the provision of orbital rail services for direct services to places such as Bromley and Twickenham—an issue raised by my hon. Friend.
I do not want to be churlish about GoVia's proposals—they are promising. The company's eagerness to keep the paying passenger involved in the process is encouraging. For that reason, I do not want to jump to conclusions about the particular proposal that panicked me and my constituents, although it could disadvantage many local residents. As it is only a proposal, it is appropriate to raise it now—before it is set in stone.
It is proposed that direct trains to Victoria station would no longer run from Carshalton Beeches, Wallington and Waddon—three of the six stations used by my constituents. Under Go Via's proposals those trains would run direct only to London Bridge; people would have to change at West Croydon for a connection to Victoria.
I have some concern about the openness and clarity of the proposal. The matter has come to light only as a result of the public meetings organised by myself and my hon. Friend.
GoVia included a map outlining the proposals in its presentation document, but only by studying the map carefully can one get an indication that such changes are afoot. For instance, Carshalton Beeches. Wallington and Waddon stations are not even listed on the map, so it is difficult to determine what effect the proposals might have.
GoVia has sought to clarify matters in correspondence with me and has confirmed that, under its proposals, there would be four trains an hour to London Bridge station from places such as Carshalton Beeches station. The decision has apparently not yet been made and public discussions are continuing, which is a relief as there may be an opportunity for it to change its mind.
I am concerned that matters have been made worse by rail privatisation. It is difficult to find out about GoVia's proposals from the Strategic Rail Authority, because some of the proposals are commercially confidential. For example, it is impossible to find out whether the stations served by the different train operating companies come under the SRA' s jurisdiction. Again, because of commercial confidentiality, the SRA was unable, or unwilling, to reveal whether that came within its remit, so we seem to have lost accountability in relation to the


public railways. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us how he intends to ensure more open government in the franchise bidding process, so that the public can influence it.
We are certain from the proposals that GoVia will increase the frequency of train services, but, as I have said, it will do so at the expense of sending trains to two terminals in London. I wonder whether the SRA was aware that that was one of the implications of GoVia's proposals. I also wonder whether the SRA considers the bids in that detail and whether it considers the impact that such proposal can have on commuters. Certainly, the response that I have received to the proposals is one of great alarm. People have told me that they chose to live in a certain place because they want quick and relatively reliable access to Victoria station. People are worried about the impact on house prices and so on if the rail services alter.
I understand why GoVia has made those proposals: more slots are available at London Bridge station, so there are more opportunities to provide a greater number of trains. However, the local view is that people would prefer to forgo the advantages provided by a more frequent train service, preferring to keep the flexibility of travelling either to Victoria or London Bridge.
To remove the direct train service to Victoria station would constitute great inconvenience to local rail users and they would not accept that that would be offset by providing more frequent train services. We are not able to look at GoVia's planned timetable because we have not yet been given a copy, but it seems that the impact of its proposals, and this is being optimistic, would be an extra six minutes on the journey of passengers who wanted to go to Victoria station, and thus had to get out at West Croydon station.
Considering the fact that the survey results showed that 57 per cent. of commuters felt that current travelling conditions were poor or appalling, I suspect that many of them would prefer to wait on the platform for a less frequent train service, rather than have to endure a lengthier journey. A number of people have written to tell me that, if they want to change trains at Clapham Junction station, that would add yet another complication—yet another changing point—to their journey.
The proposals will not affect only a small number of my constituents. In the survey, Victoria station was the destination of 38 per cent. of customers, compared to 32 per cent. who travelled to London Bridge station, so there is clearly strong demand for trains to Victoria.
I do not believe that GoVia and the SRA have considered adequately the full implications of the proposals, so will the Minister tell us whether the SRA was aware of the implications of the proposed changes to the service? Does it take into account specific commuter needs when it makes its strategic decisions on train services?
Once upon a time our railways were a public service, not just a business. Privatisation has changed that, and we have seen the consequences. The nature of business means that GoVia wants to encourage the most customers to use its services, so that it can make the most profit. However, it has promised a "people first" culture that has given local rail users hope that they will have a real service for their

money. That means that GoVia must embrace the needs of a minority and provide a service that caters for all. I urge it to live up to the hope that local people have placed in it and to be careful to weigh up all the options before it cuts off the direct services.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing this debate on an important issue that affects many of my constituents as well as his.
I want to put two issues to the Minister, and they both go to the heart of the services provided to my constituents. The first relates to the legacy of investment in the infrastructure at Sutton station and Cheam station by Connex, the current train operating company. The Minister will know that I have raised this issue on a number of occasions. Other Ministers have given welcome undertakings and the SRA has been monitoring that work.
The problem is that, at Sutton station, the work would have been finished last November if Connex had delivered on Ministers' undertakings. The work to upgrade Cheam station and to reopen the toilets and the waiting room should also have finished last year, but it has not even been started. I hope that the Minister will ask the SRA to chase Connex up on those matters, because we have not seen any improvements in the conditions at either station.
The work at Sutton station is now nearing completion, but it seems to be a matter of churlishness on the part of Connex—because it has lost the franchise—that it will not apply a lick of paint to the old fabric to bring it up to the standard of the new fabric that has been installed. I hope that that churlishness will be dealt with and that Sutton will have a decent station in the near future.
My second point deals with the experience that we have had from GoVia's running of the Thameslink franchise—the running times of Thameslink trains are truly appalling. GoVia is the worst provider of rail services in London. Out of the 10 train operating companies in London, it runs more trains late all day than any other company. More than half the trains do not arrive on time. Even at peak times, it is the ninth worst out of 10. That does not bode well if the company takes over the south central franchise and provides those services.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that Thameslink will soon be subject to the close attention of a refranchising process and that we will soon see the benefits of the trains running on time and that long-term investment will be made to improve the services. At present, services on the Wimbledon loop, which covers Sutton Common, Sutton West and Sutton stations, are not up to scratch. My constituents—including Sheila Bullock and Debbie Shepperd—write to me frequently about such matters and they make it clear to me that hundreds of my constituents suffer from an appalling service day in, day out. They do not want that when GoVia takes over the south central franchise nor do they want the current service on Thameslink to continue. I hope that the Minister will be able to give them some reassurance.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing this debate and providing the House with an opportunity to discuss GoVia's proposals for south London rail services. I was a little surprised that he has managed to obtain yet another Adjournment debate on fundamentally the same issue; he will have to tell me how he; does it. If he tells other Back Benchers how he does it, he may find his style a little cramped.
The hon. Gentleman secured similar debates on 11 April and 15 November last year. Although there is little new to report since the announcements that were made when the south central franchise was awarded to GoVia, I welcome the opportunity to remind the House of what the deal represents in terms of investment and service improvements for passengers.
Before I speak about future proposals, I should like to mention current performance. The performance of Connex South Central services has improved over recent weeks. There was a serious decline in punctuality following the emergency speed restrictions that were imposed by Railtrack for safety reasons in the aftermath of the tragic accident at Hatfield. However, latest figures show that, in the four weeks to 6 January, there was a 9.3 per cent. improvement over the previous four week period on the number of trains reaching their destination within five minutes of the timetable. I expect that upward trend to continue and very much hope that the industry continues to co-operate to improve services across the national rail network.
The hon. Gentleman is concerned about how passenger views are gauged. The Strategic Rail Authority carries out a national passenger survey twice a year. It asks for comments on punctuality, reliability and frequency of trains, on the standards of rolling stock, including comfort and seating, and on information about train times. He asked whether people were consulted during the refranchisement process. Consultation does take place in those circumstances. Local authorities, passenger committees and other stakeholders are encouraged to get involved. However, some aspect of the process will always be commercially confidential. It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that in last autumn's national passenger survey, only 67 per cent. of Connex South Central passengers were satisfied with their journey and 17 per cent. were dissatisfied. Only 37 per cent. of Connex South Central passengers thought the company offered value for money, however.
It is evident from the previous debate on 15 November that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the chief executive's announcement on 24 October that the Strategic Rail Authority had signed heads of terms with GoVia and that the current operators of the Thameslink franchise were the preferred counterpart for the new replacement south central franchise. The aim of the franchise replacement is to secure a sustained improvement in performance and a step change in customer service through increased levels of investment. The proposals by GoVia and Connex Transport UK Ltd. offered substantial improvements over current standards of service. However, the chief executive decided that GoVia had demonstrated that it had the vision to bring about a step change; in quality and the capacity to deliver, while offering better value for money.
As the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), reported to the House in the debate on 15 November, GoVia plans to brand the services that run to south London, Gatwick airport, Brighton and the south coast as the new southern railway. GoVia is expected to run the business for 20 years and over that period is expected to implement an investment programme valued at up to £1.5 billion. Of that investment, £900 million is for rolling stock, £325 million is for infrastructure, £200 million is for stations and £50 million is for depots.
My hon. Friend mentioned the early benefits that are expected from the new franchise, which I shall not repeat. However, GoVia has undertaken to support all forthcoming industry safety initiatives and comply with all relevant recommendations of current inquiries.
The company has undertaken to ensure that all new trains in service after December 2003 will be fitted with the train protection warning system and provision will be made for European rail traffic management systems. It plans to invest £1.2 million per year in training and development for staff, including, for train drivers, the use of simulators and other forms of improved training procedures.
The hon. Gentleman is concerned about future service levels, especially for services to and from London that serve stations in his constituency. At this stage GoVia can only work on the indicative timetable. The south London metro concept, which I will discuss in more detail later, will also have an affect on the current service pattern. However, GoVia is obligated to engage in formal consultation with consultees as the timetable develops.
The hon. Gentleman raised the concerns of many of his constituents about the fact that the desire to increase the frequency of trains into London appears to affect the company's ability to be flexible about which station those trains arrive at. I know that he has raised that matter at a public meeting. Consultation continues and no decision has yet been taken. I am told that there are operational problems in increasing the frequency and achieving the right mix of stations. The hon. Gentleman probably understands that better than I do, because of his meetings with the train company. No decision has been taken as to whether the trains would run into Victoria or London Bridge if their frequency were increased. Problems occur if they try to go to both, as the hon. Gentleman understands. I hope that he will continue to discuss that matter with the train company and consider carefully what is in his constituents' interests. I understand that change to their travel arrangements can be upsetting, but increased frequency might bring benefits that they do not fully appreciate at the moment.

Mr. Brake: It is important that I reflect my constituents' views, as well as talking to the train company. It is clear that the constituents who have contacted me are unhappy with the current proposals.

Mr. Ainsworth: That debate will obviously continue. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that service provision will be based on existing passenger service requirements, which provide a specified minimum service level. In some cases where new services on new routes have been introduced and become a valued part of the network, passenger service requirements will be extended to cover them.
Where the passenger service requirement is currently augmented by higher levels of service, the Strategic Rail Authority requires the aggregate additional train mileage to be incorporated in the replacement franchise agreement as a separate contractual obligation. The Strategic Rail Authority will consult the relevant rail passengers committees and local authorities on any proposed changes to passenger service requirements.
I mentioned the south London metro, which is a concept jointly developed by the Strategic Rail Authority, train operating companies, Transport for London, Railtrack, the London Users Transport Committee, and the London borough-led partnerships, Seltrans and Sweltrac. Rail passengers can look forward to a "turn up and go" metro service similar to the London underground. Key features will be consistently high standards of station environment, information provision, passenger facilities, security and accessibility, with frequent, regular train services, including improvements to the level of service provision at weekends and in the evenings. The network will be branded and marketed as a single entity, even though services will be provided by a number of franchisees. A simplified fares and ticketing system, integrated with the tube and buses, is also an aspiration towards which progress is being made.
The emphasis on improving interchange with other modes of transport and the development of orbital routes will bring much needed relief to the London terminals. The south London metro concept will use sections of the existing Connex, South West Trains and Thameslink networks. Many of the features of the metro can be established within a three-year horizon, although achieving all the desired service improvements may take as long as 10 years where major infrastructure projects are required to relieve pressure on the network. Much of

the financing will be provided through the Strategic Rail Authority's programme of franchise replacement, but significant contributions are also expected to come from the London boroughs, Railtrack and Transport for London.
The current Convex South Central franchise agreement is not due to expire until May 2003. However, it is expected that a date for formal change of control will be agreed shortly, to come into effect within the next few months. That will allow GoVia to assume control of and responsibility for south central services under the same terms as those presently provided by Connex. Final negotiation and signature of the new agreement with GoVia will then follow as soon as possible. Until the early transfer can be agreed, Connex is required to meet the terms of its existing franchise agreement, including service provision, performance regimes, station standards and customer satisfaction requirements. Failure to comply will result in a breach of its contract.
The Government are committed to delivering a better, bigger, safer railway with increased punctuality and reliability, reduced journey times and higher standards of customer services. Our 10-year transport plan provides £180 billion, which includes £60 billion for railways. The Strategic Rail Authority has recently published its strategic agenda, which will be followed by its more detailed strategic plan in the autumn. The agenda is essentially a situation report, describing the main issues that the industry faces and the actions that the Strategic Rail Authority has taken, to date, to tackle them.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that passengers in and around his constituency, as well as in the rest of the country, will benefit from the improved rail services that these initiatives will generate.

Question put and .agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve midnight.